THE COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK

TERRITORIES BY ISRAEL

HEARING!

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE QUESTION OF WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS AND THE TREATMENT OF ARABS IN THE ISRAELI-OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

OCTOBER 17 AND 18, 1977

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

20-488 0 WASHINGTON : 1978
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota

JAMES B. ALLEN, Alabama

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa

HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio

DENNIS DBCONCINI, Arizona

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland

WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming

FRANCIS C. ROSENBERGER, Chief Countel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

JAMES EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

EDWARD KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada

(«)

^-(oOZlSk
4%

^ CONTENTS

Ns

\» OPENING STATEMENT

^ Page

Senator Abourezk 1

*

WITNESSES

OCTOBER 17, 1977

» Shahak, Israel, professor, Hebrew University 2

Blum, Yehuda Zvi, professor, Hebrew University 24

Mallison, W. T., professor, The George Washington University 46

OCTOBER 18, 1977

Tamari, Salim, professor, Birzeit College 73

Dakkak, Ibrahim, engineer, Jerusalem

Al-Asmar, Fawzi, poet, Jerusalem

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Basic outline of Israeli Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon's settlement

plan

Lists and maps of existing Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Golan,

Sinai and the Gaza Strip (as of August 1977)

A survey of Israeli settlements prepared by the Middle East Research and

Information Project

The Middle East Research and Information Project's paper on Israeli

settlement policy

Article on Palestinian political prisoners 90

Article on some aspects of Israel's annexationist policies regarding Jerusalem and the occupied territories

Article 49 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War

Testimony of Alfred L. Atherton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for the

Near East and South Asia before the House International Relations

Subcommittee on International Organizations 115

Israeli Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon's plan for settlements as re-

, ported by the Jerusalem Post, September 12, 1977 117

An interview with Ariel Sharon in the Jerusalem Post, September 9, 1977. 121

Article on Israeli land acquisition, 1967-77 by John Ruedy 124

Jerusalem Post article on plans of the Jewish Agency Settlement Department, September 12, 1977 127

, A collection of articles from other Israeli newspapers on settlements in the

occupied territories 131

Report issued by the International Committee for Palestinian Human

Rights in Paris on State Department reporting of Israeli human rights

violations

Collection of Israeli newspaper articles on the persecution of Black Hebrews

in Israel

Letter giving eyewitness accounts of two incidents involving treatment of

detainees in Jerusalem by Israeli police

Israeli news articles about Arabs in the occupied territories who work in

Israel 166

"!V Article by Felicia Langer on Palestinian children in the occupied terri-

~o tories 170

r»v Report on oppression in Ramallah and El-Bireh in the occupied territories,

1 March 1977 by Israel Shahak and Eytan Grosfeld 173

^_^ A report on violations of human rights in the West Bank prepared by tie

|J) Swiss League for Human Rights observation mission 179

O <m)

THE COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK TERRITORIES

BY ISRAEL

MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1977

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALIZATION,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10:05 a.m., in room

6202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, James Abourezk (acting chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Abourezk.

Staff present: Wendy Grieder, legislative assistant.

Senator ABOUREZK. The hearing will come to order.

Before I make an opening statement I would like to make an

announcement.

The hearings tomorrow will be held in a different room on this

floor at 10 o'clock in the morning in room 6226. It is just down the

hall on the same floor of this building.

The witnesses tomorrow will be Mr. Salim Tamari, professor of

sociology at Birzeit University, and Mr. Ibrahim Dakkak, an engineer

by profession and a resident of Jerusalem who has specialized in

research on the status of Jerusalem.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ABOUREZK

This is a public hearing by the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee

on Immigration and Refugees. This subcommittee has as its responsibility the problems of refugees, and nowhere is there a greater

group of refugees existing than in the Middle East. Some 3 million

Palestinian refugees comprise the Palestinian diaspora, a result of

having been driven from their homeland in 1948 by the military

forces of what is now the State of Israel. Many of these are double

refugees, having been driven out of Palestine in 1948 and again

fleeing in 1967 when Israel further expanded as a result of the war

in June of that year.

The issue facing the U.S. Government at this time is how we will

use our influence to bring the parties involved in the Middle East

conflict to a reasonable and just settlement of the controversy. A key

to that settlement of whether or not the Palestinian refugees will

eventually be able to establish a state of their own, of a kind of which

they were deprived by the acquisition by force of arms of their lands

by Israel in 1948.

(l)
The area largely conceded to be a logical site for such a Palestinian State is what is called the West Bank of the Jordan River, now

under Israeli military occupation. However, a number of Jewish

settlements have been implanted in the occupied territories by Israel,

with a great many more planned. This creation of "new facts" not only

is in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter,

but it makes more difficult an already difficult situation.

The question really comes down to this: in 1977, at a time when the

nations of the world have totally abandoned their colonies and their

colonial ambitions; when the American people and its government are

applying pressure on Rhodesia and South Africa to allow majority

rule; should the United States underwrite the creation of a whole new

system of colonies by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories ?

For myself the answer is that it should not. These hearings will

hopefully provide an answer to this question for the country as a

whole.

Our first witness this morning is the distinguished professor of

chemistry at Hebrew University, Dr. Israel Shahak, a citizen of

Israel and resident of Jerusalem.

Dr. Shahak, would you come up to the witness table please?

I believe you have an opening statement. If you would like to proceed we would like to welcome you to the subcommittee hearings and

ask you to begin with your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF ISRAEL SHAHAK, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY,

HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Dr. SHAHAK. I would like to concentrate not on questions of law

but on questions of justice and questions of the day-to-day situation.

of particular conquered territories. Those questions of justice, basic

justice as can be understood by every citizen and every fair human

being and I will also speak on the situation induced by the settlements

of the people of the conquered territories.

First of all, I would like to point out that the creation of the settlements in a territory, whose inhabitants then cannot settle in the state

which settles this territory violates, in my opinion, the right of equal

justice, the right which says that the people should be treated under

equal law. I oppose both inside the State of Israel and in every place

and in every forum of the world the statement of my Prime Minister,

Mr. Begin, that Jews have the right to settle in the land of Israel

because rights should be given irrespective of religion, race, and

nationality.

As I said in my own country, I say here that if the Jews of Tel

Aviv have the right to settle on the West Bank, then they have it only

under conditions that a mutual and equal right should be given to all

the people, let us say, people of the West Bank to settle in Tel Aviv.

Every other situation violates the conditions of freedom as known in

modern states and violates the very principles established by the

American Revolution and of the French Revolution and the most

fundamental rules of a modern democracy. It returns us to the principles which were employed by anti-Semites against Jews. I say this

especially as a Jew. The settling of the territories under this unjust
3

and unequal law reminds me very much the situation of Jews who had

suffered in European and other countries until the end of the 18th century and sometimes later, when they were not allowed to settle where

they wished but were kept in certain areas or in ghettos.

Allowing only the Jews of Israel to settle in territories and not allowing the people of these territories to settle in Israel under the

mutual and equal right resembles to me such persecution of Jews.

I say, furthermore, that we should not have used the words "Israeli

settlements" on the West Bank as we have here on this map [indicating] because, as is known to everybody in Israel, only Jews are allowed

to settle in those settlements, and not Israelis.

As a matter of recorded fact, neither people of the conquered territories nor Israeli citizens who are not Jews are allowed to settle in

the settlements on the West Bank or in Gaza or in the territory of

Golan or Sinai.

This constitutes the most blatant and open racism, both toward the

people of the occupied territories who are not allowed to dwell and to

live in state-formed settlements established on their own land and

also toward those Israeli citizens who do not happen to be Jews.

In addition, this also constitutes an act of racism against the American citizens, and a matter of fact, against citizens of the whole world.

We have a situation in which Americans are invited to settle in the

West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, or on the Sinai Territory, or in Golan

and other places but only on the condition that they are Jews. This

means in law and in practice that an American citizen in order to

benefit from those very high material incentives offered to settlers in

those territories must either be converted to the Jewish religion and

one of the conditions, is denying the religion of his ancestors or showing that he is born of a Jewish mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and the grandmother of the grandmother.

I say this not only as a human being but as a Jew that if the American Government would establish such settlements whether in Alaska

or Puerto Rico, I would have protested and if Jews were required in

order to participate in those American settlements to deny their faith

and accept, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ, then this would

in my opinion constitute the most blatant case of anti-Semitism. Even

so and by the same reasoning, settlements which are open only to such

Americans citizens, who are Jews or who convert to Judaism and deny

the faith of their ancestors, constitute equally a case of racism.

Lastly, I want to point to this: Those settlements are serving as

centers of the most blatant and horrifying child labor and exploitation employing unjust and unequal wages. I want especially to draw

the attention of this committee to the horrible and shocking case of

cheap labor in the area called Pithat Rafiah•in Hebrew and in English Rafiah Approaches•in the northwestern corner of the Sinai on

Egyptian territory, where, as I can testify from the evidence of my

own eyes, confirmed by many Israelis, for example, Dr. Amnon

Kapelink, who has published his findings in the French and Hebrew

press. Children of an age of 7 or 8 years are employed at picking

tomatoes and other vegetables. Whole families are employed under

the conditions of slave labor. And even for those who are employed

not under those conditions of slave labor, an Arab laborer is officially


6

implied there that all the settlements described there will remain a part of the

state of Israel (Jerusalem Post, September 9, 1977). On the same day, in an

interview with Ma'ariv, General Sharon, the Israeli minister of agriculture and

the minister in charge of the settlements in the occupied territories, stated,

speaking about the settlements on the Golan Heights, "There is absolutely no

disagreement between me and the Prime Minister. It is only a matter of formulation. No disagreement. There is absolutely no possibility of retreat on the Golan.

Not in the common use of the word. One might correct the border here and

there, a matter of a few hundred meters, and I emphasize, no more. And even such

border-corrections cannot be done everywhere, but only in a limited number

of places. That it is. Absolutely not more. There is no disagreement. In contrast

to the former governments, this one is new in not having disagreements and

rivalries among the ministers. There are differences of opinions, differences of

formulation, but the government acts as one body and has one stand" (Ma'ariv,

September 9, 1977).

Similarly declared Professor Ra'anan Weitz, the Director of the Settlements

Department of the Jewish Agency, on September 2, 1977, when questioned as

follows:

Question. "Is the meaning of a new settlement that we shall not move from

that place?"

Answer (of Professor Weitz). "Yes. Surely. According to my opinion of a new

settlement that is founded, one is prohibited from leaving that place." (Yedloth

Aharonot, September 2, 1977)

3. THE REASONS FOE SETTLING THE TERRITORIES

There are in my opinion two chief reasons for the Israeli settlements in the

occupied territories and only those: The establishment of new frontiers for the

state of Israel, and the holding down of the Arab population of the occupied

territories in a state of permanent subjugation. The first, which has been referred to above, is to establish the future permanent border of the state of Israel

in the consciousness of the Israeli Jews first of all; in the consciousness of the

Diaspora Jews who are providing some of the money involved; and finally be

creating "faits accomplis" in the eyes of world opinion to finish this process.

In this connection the plan of the "inland population strip" as enunciated by

General Sharon (Jerusalem Post, September 9, 1977) and which was based on

plans proposed informally at least a year before, clearly shows the "Greater

Israel" with a heavily populated eastern border "extending from the Golan,

through the Jordan Rift Valley, the Arava and down to Sharm el-Sheikh" (ibid).

But there exists a second reason for the settlements, a reason as important

as the first: To divide the Arabs of the occupied territories into small segments,

divide one from another by the "lines" or "wedges" of Jewish settlements, in order

to make them "manageable" for the future of permanent subjugation. It should

be clearly stated and as clearly understood that for General Sharon, the Israeli

minister in charge of the settlements, Arabs constitute a danger just because

they are Arabs and for no additional reason. For example the sole reason for

"the insertion of a wedge of Israeli settlements" on "the western slopes of

Samaria" is given as the presence of "a string of Arab villages", inside the area

of the state of Israel, whose population numbers close to 100,000, and "another

band of dense Arab settlements" which also numbers "close to 100,000 inhabitants" on the other side of the former green line" (my emphasis, but Sharon's

expression!). The sole purpose of inserting this "wedge" of Jewish settlements

is "the danger", as General Sharon says, of one block of Arabs joining the other

block. It is especially important to note that one of the "blocks" of Arabs which

constitutes "a danger" according to General Sharon, is composed of Israeli citizens, whose danger consists apparently in the fact that they do not happen to be

Jews, and this racist argument is then used as the reason for the establishment

of a "wedge" of Jewish settlements. (All quotations from Jerusalem Post. September 9, 1977). The same argument appears in another similar description of

Sharon's settlement plans in Ma'ariv of September 1, 1977, where the reason for

establishing Jewish settlements in this area is given as "to prevent such Arab

continuity". The height of this racist approach was reached by General Sharon

in an interview with Ma'ariv on September 9, 1977, in which Arabs generally were

stigmatised as "strangers" who steal the "national lands"•the clear implication

being that Arabs, whether Israeli citizens or not are forever strangers in their

own country, in which they were born, and that only Jews should be allowed and

encouraged to "settle" on state lands, whether in Israel or in the occupied

territories.
In my opinion, it is this racist approach which is the strongest reason (or the

plans of settlements of the present Israeli government.

4. INCENTIVES FOB THE JEWISH BETTLEB8 IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Although a minority of the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are drawn

there for "ideological" reasons, it should be clearly explained that the Israeli government employs a variety of material incentives•given only to Jews, of course,

but to Jews from all countries of the world•in order to induce them to settle in

the occupied territories. Other material benefits are given by the Jewish Agency

and the Jewish National Fund, actually employing to a large extent money collected in the USA as "charity" and as such deductible from US income tax.

As the most important example of such material incentives let me quote the

very much reduced apartment prices offered in the town of Yamit•in Egyptian

territory, in north-western Sinai•according to the advertisement of the Israeli

Ministry of Building and Housing, of September 2, 1977. From a variety of apartments and cottages offered in this ad, I am selecting the most expensive and the

cheapest examples: "A cottage built in a row, of 5 rooms, area of 113 square

meters, with a courtyard" will cost 270,000 Israeli Pounds (about $26,000). Of

this sum, a family which does not have an apartment in Israel can get 100,000

I.P. in a government loan which is not tied to the inflation rate (which under

the conditions of up to 40 percent rate of yearly inflation prevalent in Israel is

more a gift than a loan), 25,000 I.P. in the form of a "conditional grant" (conditional on the recipient's remaining some years in the settlement) and in addition a loan, under unspecified conditions, of 30,000 I.P. All together, the loans and

the grants can amount to 155,000 I.P., so that the remaining sum to be paid will be

only 115,000 I.P. (about $12,000). For comparison's sake, in the area of Tel Aviv

such a cottage can cost from 500,000 to 1,000,000 I.P., with all the housing loans

tied to inflation, and with a much higher proportion of the sum to be paid at

once.

The cheapest apartment in Yamit, of 3 rooms and of 82 square meters, in a

house of three stories high, costs 175,000 I.P., of which the same total sum of

155,000 I.P. can be obtained in the form of government loans or grants. This

leaves a sum of 20,000 I.P. ($1900 approximately) for the settler to pay for

receiving such an apartment as his absolute property.

Another example can be given about the prices of apartments in Kiryat Arba

on the West Bank. The figures come from an article by Shimshon Ehrlieh in

Ha'aretz of September 16, 1977, and they are given by official Israeli sources. Mr.

Ehrlieh notes that the prices of the apartments in Kiryat Arba have not changed

"for a long time", in spite of the Israeli inflation which affects the prices of

everything inside Israel. An apartment with four rooms, of 96 square meters, is

being sold for the price of 180,000 I.P., in Kiryat Arba, and one with three

rooms of 86 square meters for 160,000 I.P. A government loan of 100,000 I.P. and

a grant of 35,000 I.P. are available, so that one can buy an apartment for the sum

of 25,000 I.P. (some $2,300). In spite of this and of the excellent conditions

under which the settlers are required to repay the loans, most of the settlers have

obtained another and better concession: They are not required to buy their

apartments at all, but they are renting them for the maximum sum of 300 I.P.

(about $28) a month, which is probably a third of the rent for a similar apartment in Tel Aviv.

In spite of such material incentives, the number of apartments, cottages, and

other housing built by the Israeli government remains greater than the number

of settlers. In order to solve this "problem" two of the officials of the Israeli

government in charge of Kiryat Arba, Mr. Mayevsky, the director of the administration, and Mr. Shtrasberg, who is in charge of absorption there, have proposed that the Israeli government should cease all government building of

houses, or governmental help for housing in "the center of Israel" (meaning

around Tel Aviv) in order to force people to settle in the occupied territories

whether they want to or not (Ha'aretz, September 16). In my opinion something

or the other of this kind will probably be attempted soon.

5. THE SETTLEMENTS AS THE CENTERS OF EXPLOITATION AND CHILD LABOR

The most shocking area of child labor, and general exploitation of workers

under conditions resembling slavery, is the north-western Sinai area (on Egyptian territory) called the "Rafah Approaches", and in Hebrew "Pithat Rafi'ah".

There, as I can testify from the evidence of my own eyes, and as confirmed by
8

many Israelis and others, children, sometimes as young as 7 or 8 years old, are

employed habitually by the Jewish settlers of this area, who have become very

rich indeed in the short span of about three years. The "official" wage of an

adult worker is given by the regional settlements-council "Eshkol", which comprises both the settlements in this area and settlements inside Israel, as "12.5

I.P. per hour of labor, 5 I.P. per hour of Arab labor." Of course Arab children

are paid much less than this, and some of the payments, both for the children

and for the adults, are made in kind, by "unloading" on them the most rotten

produce of the fields in which they w-ork instead of monetary payment! The

people who are treated so are Egyptian citizens who were expelled from the

places where they lived for supposed "security" reasons, but who are allowed,

indeed encouraged, to work on their old lands under the conditions of more-thanfeudal bondage to the settlers. Whole families, including children, are enslaved

to a particular settler, and are working for him under the most atrocious

conditions.

Although the conditions in this area are particularly horrible, the difference

in the wages between Israeli citizens (including of course the Jewish settlers in

the occupied territories) and the native inhabitants of the territories is both

intentional and general. For example, Mr. Mayevsky, the official in charge of

Kiryat Arba, referred to in the former section, explained that "a textile plant,

which was built on the basis of a wage of 5 to 5.5 I.P. per hour was built from

its beginning for employing Arabs (my emphasis) because Jews will not agree

to work for such a wage." In my opinion many similar plants or settlements

were built with the help and encouragement of the Israeli government in order to

exploit the labor of the inhabitants of the occupied territories under conditions of near-slavery, and of course without any possibility of the formation

of trade unions of any kind.

6. SUMMARY

The Israeli settlements in the occupied territories constitute by their very

existence a violation of the most basic human rights and of international law.

Their purpose is expansion and the permanent subjugation of the population of

those territories. They are a source of discrimination, racism, and oppression.

In the interest of all the parties to the conflict, including the best interests of the

Israeli citizens, those settlements should go, and be abolished as soon as possible.

Otherwise, in addition to being a source of corruption to all, they will also

become one of the main causes of the next war in the Middle East.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you very much.

I am fully aware that you don't like to trade on your background as

a means of establishing yourself as a spokesman for your point of view

but I think it is necessary to put it on the record.

Would you tell the committee something about your background?

Dr. SHAHAK. I was born in Warsaw. Poland, in 1933.1 spent World

War II under Hitler's occupation. I have arrived in Palestine in 1945

and I am from that time a permanent resident first of Palestine and

then a citizen of the State of Israel. I almost always lived there as a

part of two periods of postdoctorate or sabbatical research.

Senator ABOUKEZK. I know that you have come to the United States

before. In fact, I met you 3 or 4 years ago. I can't recall the exact

date, but perhaps you can. I think I mentioned at the time that the

way you spoke out against the continued expansion of Israel must

have caused you great difficulty in Israel. You said at the time that it

caused you less difficulty there than it did here in the United States.

I wonder if that is still true.

Dr. SHAHAK. Even more true. I am happy to say that for the last

2y2 years or more there has been no difficulty whatsoever in the State

of Israel. The difficulties from the United States continue, but I will

bear them.

Senator ABOUKEZK. What exactly happens when you come to the

United States to speak your opinion here ?
Dr. SHAHAK. Very simple. If I am sponsored by a church group,

then usually all the Jewish organizations in a given city are putting

pressure on this church group to revoke my sponsorship even at the

last moment. . . ... ...

Also, anonymous literature is circulated against me. Itis tull ot lies.

There are no dates and addresses given.

Those examples should suffice. They are political and general. I will

not talk about American individuals and so on. They have their rights

to express their opinions even if those are abusive opinions.

Senator ABOUKEZK. DO you find yourself subject to harassment when

you are speaking around the United States on this issue ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Very much so.

Senator ABOUREZK. What kind of harassment and by whom i

Dr. SHAHAK. I do not know by whom. I do not employ an apparatus

of spies who can find who those people are, but I would say this: Those

people who I have identified are coming from the special organizations and the chief organization which is employed in harassing me

is B'nai B'rith and the so-called Anti-Defamation League.

Senator ABOUREZK. The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League?

Dr. SHAHAK. Yes. ,

Senator ABOTJREZK. DO you know of any other groups or individuals

who might be a party to the harassment of you as you go around and

speak ?

Dr. SHAHAK. NO.

Senator ABOUREZK. I would like to direct your attention to this

map. [Map shown.]

We have gotten this map from the State Department. As I understand it those are the existing settlements which have been established

in the West Bank to this date.

I wonder if you have personally been to any of those settlements.

Dr. SHAHAK. I can say firmly that those are the settlements established until around the first of August. Meanwhile there have been

others. I think I have visited every settlement shown here with the

exception of Mahal Rehan and I visited most of them more than one

time.

Senator ABOUREZK. I wonder if you would describe the political

setup in the settlements and give us a description of what goes on

when a settlement is established•like its physical and political characteristics.

Dr. SHAHAK. A settlement is usually first established as a military

settlement and then you can inspect it from the outside and you cannot

enter.

When it becomes a civilian settlement you can enter very easily and

very freely. Some of the settlements are agricultural especially those

that are near the Jordan River. Some others sometimes employ some

industry. I must say that most of the industry there that I inspected

are part of one town Ma'ale Adumim called also Mishor Adumim

near Jerusalem. To give you one example, in a kibbutz called Na'aran

the industry appears to be carpentry, mechanical carpentry, but they

do not make finished products. It is a subbranch of another rich kibbutz Giv'at Brenner in Israel which sends wood there to be cut into

logs. Then the wood is going back to the coast of the Mediterranean.

This appears to me to be a ridiculously wasteful economic procedure.
10

In another place a kibbutz called Mehota, the industry described

to me and as I have seen it is making locks. Since it is on the top of the

mountains it was very hard to make a road leading there and to see

what they can do there. I quite question those locks.

To give the most ridiculous example, Ofra has one of its main industries, T-shirts, on which is written in English "Samaria is the Heart

of the Land of Israel."

I would say generally speaking that apart of Ma'ale Adumim and

apart of Elazar south of Jerusalem•I did not see or hear of any

serious industry.

I have seen serious agriculture in all areas of the Jordan Valley. I

especially want to mention Patsaiel which is very successful agriculturally and all the settlements which are near to it, Massua and the

others.

Senator ABOUEEZK. IS there any kind of a policy on the establishment of the location of the settlement or is it just done by the settlers

themselves ?

Dr. SIIAHAK. Oh, no. It is done by the Government. I do not believe

apart from Kadum that any settlement was established by settlers

themselves. There is also evidence as of now of an interview of General Sharon of September 9 that there is complete understanding between the settlers and the Government.

The location of the existing settlements shown on the map as of the

beginning of August shows in the northern West Bank two lines and

you can see also a line which is the continuation of one of the lines

towards the western bank of the Dead Sea.

Senator ABOTJREZK. Why would the settlements be established in a

line?

Dr. SHAHAK. This is the Allon plan and now the Sharon plan

which is intended to cut off a third of the so-called Samaria in order

to leave only the western part as whatever it should have been left for.

But by now, according to a map which is adjoined to the Sharon

plan, the new settlements which are not shown on this map are cutting

the West Bank into squares and are entering into the areas which

on this map up here are more or less white and are dividing the population of the West Bank into areas which should not have, according

to Sharon, more than 100,000 inhabitants in a given area. This is the

process of ghettoization which is my opinion shows the intention not

only of permanent occupation but of permanent ghettoization, of

keeping the population in permanent subjection by keeping them in

squares whose lines will be the divisions of the settlements. This is

not shown on this map.

Senator ABOTJREZK. The proposed settlements are not shown on this

map?

Dr. SHAHAK. The planned settlements and the settlements established in the last month are not shown on the map. This map is according to New York Times and Israeli sources. There were established in the last month, according to my count, 14 settlements at

least, all of whom are not shown on this map.

Senator ABOUREZK. Can you use a pencil and point out where those

14 new settlements are going to go ?

Dr. SHAHAK. NO: because since thev were established when I was

not in Israel•and I have been here for a month and I could not inspect them personally. As I told you, all of those shown here with
11

the exception of one were inspected personally by me. I can show

the lines of the settlements because I have seen a map of them published in the Hebrew press.

Senator ABOUREZK. Yes; if you would do that we would appreciate

it. This map was actually drawn up by the CIA. Apparently the New

York Times is ahead of the CIA. [Laughter.]

Dr. SHAHAK. What I am referring to is Israeli television. I have

seen this map. [Laughter.]

There should be two lines of settlements going here [indicating]

north to south, and three lines going east to west [indicating].

Senator ABOUREZK. SO Israel is making a grid system ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Exactly, and what will be between the lines is called

"squares"•again, two lines going so and three lines going horizontally. And, in addition, cutting off the widening of Jerusalem and

some settlements in the southern part here [indicating].

I will submit the map in evidence.

Senator ABOUREZK. Do you have the map with you ?

Dr. SHAHAK. I have the map with me.

Senator ABOUREZK. I would like to have it put in the record.

Dr. SHAHAK. I have the map with me. It is in Hebrew but I have put

an English translation of the names and I will submit it.

Senator ABOUREZK. At this time also we will put in the record a list

of already existing settlements by name, date established, affiliation,

and the estimated population of each of these settlements.

[The map and material referred to follow:]

UNSETTLED AREAS

A close look at the "Sharon plan" reveals that one of its basic tendencies is to

avoid penetrating areas with existing Arab population, and establish settlements

in areas, which are hardly populated. The planners consider the "Sharon plan-'

to be the practical answer to the present security problems, considering the

Arab population on the one hand, and the Jewish population on the other, are

situated on both sides of the green line.

The "Sharon plan", which requires settling thousands of Jews in urban and

agricultural centers in order to realize it, is being processed at the moment by

planning teams under the instructions of the minister.

The "Sharon plan", as it has become known as, is supposed to answer security

needs, and concentrates on solving three main problems:

1. Thickening the area of Jewish settlements in the Jerusalem-corridor.

2. Establishing a complex of settlements in the area stretching west to the

line of Genin, Nablus and Rammala.

3. Planning a network of roads, at the center of Israel, from the sea in the

west to the Jordan valley in the east.

WARNING FROM RETREAT FROM THE GOLAN HEIGHTS

(Reported by Menahem Rabat)

At a gathering at Merom Golan to mark ten years of settlement on the Golan

Heights, the Minister of Agriculture, Ariel Sharon, said yesterday among other

things, that "the Syrian take-over of Lebanon, with American support, caused a

total change•to the the worse•in our situation in the north."

"There are talks lately of territorial compromise, but from this stage I warn

from any retreat from the Golan Heights. There is nowhere to retreat from on

the Golan Heights."

"Israel must take on herself a task, to be realized in 20 years; to settle 2

million Jews in the area alongside the coastal plain, from the Golan Heights in

the north to Ofira in the south. This settlement will be both urban and agricultural, and the settlers on the Golan Heights are the northern and most important

link in this plan."

(The speech of the Chief of general staff at the same gathering has been

omitted.)
12

0 joU*

__• _L_.sk -•--- ' • •ffl

WE-crT *&»»r»»» tr#*«tV

nfc-a-.^ , Axil ^

-WSK4M--

D^

•WM £/"'

*££**&«"*

B_Jr~-

i.s-soeo ;ar>v i-p

.,.-.• ,• _,_ r.• .-o'riirncrMD* 3i«r "»or/«
13

ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON THE WEST BANK

Estimated

Name Date established Affiliation population

1. Kefar Etzion September 1967 NRP 1,000

2. Mehola February 1968 NRP 90

3. Kallia _ do Labor 120

4. Kiryat Arba April 1968.. Gush Emunim 1,500

5. Argaman... _ • November 1968 Herut 90

6. Allon Shevut.. July 1969 • NRP (i)

7. RoshTzurim do NRP (i)

8. Gilgal January 1970. Labor.. 240

9. Massua do NRP 80

10. Mevo Horon . _ do Poalei Agudat Israel 120

11. Mitzpe Shalem _ December 1970 Labor 40

12. Yitav (Na'aran) ..do ....do 30

13. Patzael do do 160

14. Attarot (Hamra) May 1971 Histadrut 90

15. Bekaot July 1972 ....do 80

16. Ma'ale Ephraim _ do... Labor 100

17. Gitit August 1972 Herut 100

16. Menora December 1972 Labor 90

19. Ma'ale Adumin March 1975 Gush Emunim 130

20. Ofra May 1975 ....do 100

21. Tekoah June 1975 NRP 40

22. Elazar. October 1975 NRP 90

23. Kochav Hashahar June 1975 Labor 40

24. Elon Moreh (Qadum) December 1975 Gush Emunim 200

25. Roi _ March 1976 40

26. MevoShilo _ _ November 1976 Labor _ 50

27. NetivHagdud 1976 ....do 40

28. Mivsam 1976 ....do 30

29. Almog _ January 1977 do 30

30. Rimonim March 1977 _ 30

31. Pe'erim(Mesha) May 1977 Gush Emunim 60

32. Shayelet 1977

33. NahalReyhan 1977...

34. Tomer'

35. MigdaIOz'

36. Jiftlik' |

38 Horon Gimmel'f APProve(l Dv ,ne sovernment of Prime Minister Begin.

39'. Yattir» _"J

> Included in figure for Kfar Etzion (No. 1). 1 Settlements currently under construction.

NEW SETTLEMENTS PLANNED OR PROPOSED FOR THE WEST BANK

Name Location Status

Givon North of Jerusalem Proposed by Labor Housing Ministry and

by Gush Emunim.

Karna'im West of Nablus Gush Emunim.

Unknown Near Jericho

Nabi Saleh Northwest of Ramallah Do.

Dothan Near Jenin Do.

Shomron Near Sebastia

Beit El Near Ramallah Do.

Tirza Nablus-Damya Road Do.

Haris East of Pe'erim Do.

Shilo _ North of Ramallah
14

ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON THE GOLAN HEIGHTS

Estimated

Name Date established Affiliation population

1. Merom Golan July 1967 Labor 700

2. Snir September 1967 Mapam •. 90

3. Afiq ._ December 1967 Labor. 90

4. Mevo Hamma January 1968 do 150

5. Eliad _ do__ do 150

6. Ein Zivan do do 350

7. GivatYoav March 1968 __do 180

8. Geshur _. April 1968 Mapam 80

9. Ramat Magshimim July 1968 NRP 90

10. Neot Golan ... September 1968 Independent Liberal 180

11. Neve Ativ ._ April 1969. ...do 150

12. Ramot • May 1969 .__. Labor 150

13. Khisfit _ May 1971 NRPp 200

14. Bne Yehuda September 1971 Labor _. 420

15. El Rom July 1971 do 250

16. Nov July 1972 NRP .._ 150

17. KefarHaruv _ May 1973 Labor 180

18. Gamla (Mordot) 1973 do 50

19. Keshet May 1974 ____ NRP 300

20. Har Odem (Sion) December 1975 Independent Liberal 100

21. Shaal do Herut. 50

22. Tannuriya (Yonathan) do NRP 50

23. Aniam _

24. Avne Etan _

25. Katzrin

Settlements currently under construction.

i

ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE GAZA STRIP AND SINAI PENINSULA

Name Date established Affiliation Estimated

population

1. Ofira 1967 150

2. Nahal Sinai... December 1967 Herut 40

3. Dikla.. June 1969 do 80

4. Kefar Darom.... October 1970 NRP 40

5. Sadot January 1971 Labor 260

6. Dizahav September 1971 Independent Liberal 80

7. Neviot do Labor 150

8. Nahal Morag June 1972 do _ 50

9. Netrazim __ November 1972 Herut... 50

10. Netzer Hazani (KatiQ -- May 1973 NRP 50

11. Yamit 1973 1, 000

12. Netiv Ha'Asara... July 1973.. Labor.___ 150

13. Ogda August 1974 do _ 140

14. Sufa (Sukkot) do do 30

15. Nahal Haruvit (Tarsag) December 1975 Herut 40

16. Hclit..___•___ July 1977 Labor 50

17. Absalom. __

18. Nir Avraham i

19. Talmei Josef _ _

• Currently under construction.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

GENERAL

Precise data concerning settlements is invariably very difficult to obtain. Plans,

both long and short-term, are prepared by a variety of organizations and often

find their way into the public domain with something less than complete accuracy.

In addition, Israeli political factions with a stake in the establishment of settlements often use leaks to the press in an effort to force the hand of the government. Such leaks, often dealing prematurely with the approval or establishment

of a new settlement or with the expansion of an existing one, are easily confused

with factual reports of decisions taken by the only official body authorized to

commit the government. That body is the Interministerial Committee on Settlements, whose chairman since the Begin government assumed office has been retired Major General Ariel Sharon, Minister of Agriculture.
15

NAMES OF SETTLEMENTS

The names of settlements often go through several changes between the approval of the settlement and its "permanent" construction. This is usually because

the initial planning organization makes reference only to a geographic location

or utilizes an Arabic place-name; the settlers themselves then opt for a different

name, often based on the site's biblical antecedent.

DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT

There are usually three important dates in the life of a settlement: first, its

date of official approval; second, the commencement of the physical preparation

of a site or the movement of initial settlers into pre-existing buildings; and third,

the transfer of the settlement to a different and permanent location, which occurs

frequently, but not always. The date shown in the preceding tables is the second,

the date on which resources are actually committed to the enterprise.

AFFILIATION

No settlement is completely independent; most are affiliated with a settlement organization which, in turn, is linked with one or another political party or

faction. The settlement depends to a large degree on its parent organization for

infusion of human, financial and material resources.

The most successful economically of the settlements are those affiliated with

the three large kibbutz federations belonging to the two old-line factions of the

Labor Party or to the more left-of-center Mapam Party; their experience in establishing successful agricultural settlements predates the establishment of the

State of Israel. Although the federations associated with the Labor Party factions (Mapai and Ahdut HaAvodah) cooperate fully today and would agree on

most political matters, their continued separate existence reflects the depth of

their political differences during the early days of the state. The kibbutz federation affiliated with Mapam has for ideological reasons not participated extensively

in settlements in the occupied territories, limiting itself to two kibbutzim in the

Golan.

The two major elements in the current government coalition•the Herut Party

and the National Religious Party (NRP)•are relative newcomers to the settlement field. These two parties have become, nevertheless, the primary exponents of

the policy of unrestricted Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, particularly the West Bank. The only group showing more zeal for settlement is the

orthodox religious, ultra-nationalistic Gush Emunim, which maintains links with

the activist Youth Wing of the NRP.

A number of settlements, known as nahals, have been established primarily for

security purposes, with economic self-sufficiency being a minor consideration.

These are under the direct supervision of the Israeli Defense Forces and are

populated by young volunteers, both male and female, who are given training in

both small-unit military tactics and agriculture. When such settlements exhibit

the ability to subsist economically by themselves, and when a sufficient number

of civilian settlers are available, they are transferred to one or another settlement organization.

POPULATION

Precise population figures are impossible to obtain. The figures in the tables

have been derived by counting the individual housing units in each settlement and

multiplying by an appropriate factor, depending primarily on the age and economic vitality of each settlement. These figures are therefore more accurately a

gauge of the potential population of each settlement, since it is difficult to estimate at any given time the number of housing units unoccupied.
16

sraeli Settlements on the West Bank Map B

•^ GOLAN HEIGHTS^r

A Israeli settlement ^Haifa

J 7

Syrla

i

7

h

r

0 Government proposed

"* settlament area

Q Gush Emunim proposed

settlement area

Under construction

0 5 lOMilw

Israel

.Nazareth

* .Janirt \

0 5 10 NlMMtHt

/

<

jLmm SAMARIA

i

fcdalqityah

Nabuius

0

}

o »

Jo rdan

TEL AVIVYAFO. ^ O 4W

) WEST BANK V

/

' /

\fc ' •'••"i% Ram *& jH

Several seitlmneots ^ Q Allah • ^H

proposed far -.. * .-• fH rt

AMMANj,

LATHUN ~^^

SALIENT

• JerusWm Several settlements

•A* • v

r

-i proposed

E

/

y

/

Israel /

\ '

> GA7A STRIP 1 ,_, •

I Hebron

s '

/

/

/ °

JUDEA

•

•

/ \

K ?^m^?*miwMT«nw ' /

57383B 8-77 \
17

sraeti Settlements on the Golan Heights Map A
18

Israeli Settlements in the Gaza Strip and Sinai

i

i

1 £*s Fn&mnirnt 1

i i_ _ _ S* **i£-j

Y Israel

' ^gyp«

MapC

l

\

.

si

srmp s (

1

ItMW'.'t

Israel

j ~ t m A

\ RAFAH

1

v/

APP^OlACftES

'!0 iSXfmmwia propcm*; for tfm

«re» ftwn *And W Swe^Wfi*.

9Uunun S V

i . \
19

Senator ABOUREZK. The list is for all the occupied territories not

only the West Bank.

So it is your view that the Government establishes the location of

the settlement and in fact decides whether or not the settlement should

be established; is that correct ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Yes. That is definitely so. I think that this can be taken

as a fact.

Senator ABOUREZK. DO you have an opinion as to why the Israeli

Government is establishing settlements in what are clearly occupied

territories ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Well, I think that by now with this Government there

cannot be the slightest reason to doubt the intention. One of the

articles from the Jerusalem Post, which I can also submit in evidence,

is actually called "A Vision of Israel at Century's End." This article

describes the settlements.

I think the intention of this Government is, insofar as the West

Bank and Gaza and Golan and part of Sinai is concerned, is to keep

all of those territories as a permanent colony of the State of Israel•

not part of the state but as a colony because people there would not

be given rights. I think that the settlements are established in order

to achieve a colonial rule which will be easy to keep. We will keep the

people there in a state of perpetual submission.

It is for this reason that in the article which I have submitted with

the map it is stated that one of the reasons for establishing the new

settlements in special places is to prevent Arab continuity. If there

is a block, as it said in one of the articles, of Arabs of 100,000 people

and nearby another block of another similar number of people, then

a line of settlements will be established between them to prevent the

continuity of the people.

I think that very many colonial regimes behave like this only they

usually had fortresses instead of settlements. The settlements by now,

and under this Government, only make sense if you assume that this

is to hold the land around them in perpetuity.

Senator ABOUREZK. SO, you believe that the Government of Israel

wants to hold the West Bank in perpetuity ?

Dr. SHAHAK. And the Gaza Strip and the settled part of Sinai and

Golan.

Senator ABOUREZK. IS it your opinion that the Israeli Government

has no intention of negotiating the return of those territories?

Dr. SHAHAK. I am absolutely sure about the West Bank and the

Gaza. There are many statements to this effect. As for Golan, I am

willing to submit a statement of General Sharon speaking in the name

of Prime Minister Begin on September 9. It makes a very strong

statement on September 9 of this year. I can also say that on general

evidence, that this unwillingness to return territories with settlements

includes the Israeli Labor Party and the other major parties of Israel

who consider that the settlements once founded will remain a part

of the State of Israel. This is the opinion of the three major parties

of Israel•Likud, the Democratic Party for Change, and the Labor

Party.

Senator ABOUREZK. YOU believe they are all in agreement on that

policy ?
20

Dr. SHAHAK. On that policy, yes. They are not in agreement about

plans for further settlements but they are agreed that settlements

once founded will remain as part of the area of the State of Israel.

Insofar as the Labor Party is concerned, their past minister in charge

of settlements, Mr. Galizi, has expressed himself with great clarity on

the subject.

Senator ABOTTEEZK. Dr. Shahak, I wonder if you know or if you

would be able to give the committee an idea of the rights which are

provided and denied the Palestinian Arabs who live on the West Bank

under that occupation.

Dr. SHAHAK. Yes. I will do it with greatest pleasure because I have

dealt with this subject for a very long time.

The first thing that I want to emphasize is the complete absence

of basic democratic rights, the rights that are called in this country

"grassroot democratic rights." I'm not speaking about national rights.

I am speaking about the rights of having a public meeting, a right of

establishing cultural clubs, let's say, for studying poetry or for studying any part of any culture.

I am speaking here about the right of peaceful and nonviolent

demonstrations, the right of having a Palestinian flag in one's possession, the rightsto form paid unions

Senator ABOTJREZK. A Palestinian flag ?

Dr. SHAHAK. TO have a Palestinian flag in one's possession is a crime

and not only this, it is also a crime to put colors of Palestinian flags

on one's tee shirt even if one is only a boy. Children have been very

cruelly punished and required to post a bond for good behavior for

putting the colors of Palestinian flags on their tee shirts. I have

testified about this many times.

Included in this is the right of peaceful and nonviolent demonstration. I will quote the right of closing shops as a protest or as a

sign of mourning. I believe there cannot be any more peaceful demonstration than closing shops. This is forbidden and the shopkeepers

are very cruelly punished for this "crime." They can be also arbitrarily punished in addition.

To this I want to add what is included in any state•and by the

way also in the State of Israel on behalf of its citizens•the right of

not being deported.

Any inhabitant of conquered territory including those in Jerusalem

can be deported, can be taken from his home at night and without

any legal procedure whatsoever can be put across the border. I do

believe, and as a matter of fact I can quote a supreme judge of the

Israeli court, Mr. Haim Cohen, who said but was helpless when saying

it that exile is the most horrible punishment because that was the

punishment inflicted upon Cain.

Nevertheless, the military government has the right to inflict this

punishment arbitrarily and the men deported will never be allowed to

come back.

I would like to give you one single example of a man who was my

personal friend for several years in Jerusalem. Mr. Ali Khatib who

was the editor of the Arab paper, Ashab. In early 1975 I heard about

his deportation in the following manner: After opening my radio in

the morning to hear the news, I hear that Ali Khatib was deported.
21

He left behind him a wife and seven children. I do offered this fact

for the benefit of those who are fighting in this country and rightly

so, for the right of the unification of families. The family of Ali

Khatib lives in Jerusalem and it can be reunified only out of its own

homeland. I especially use this expression. It cannot be reunified in its

own homeland even if you take only the town of Jerusalem as the

homeland of the family of Ali Khatib because no one of those who has

been deported, and without any legal procedure whatsoever, is ever

allowed to come back.

I have demanded many times and before many forums that people

deported from conquered territories should be allowed to come back

and to be reunified with their families. I have talked in vain.

The last thing I want to mention is a question of administrative

imprisonment. You have imprisonment inflicted now on two of the

perhaps, in my opinion, greatest leaders of Palestinians of the West

Bank, Dr. Tayssir Aruri, teacher of physics in Birzeit College, and

Mr. Atallah Rashmawi, who endured 41 months of the administrative

imprisonment and the second was elected to the municipality of Beit

Sahur. I want to refer to the last fact because of its significance. Many

mayors of the West Bank have been deported while in office and candidates have been deported or imprisoned without trial. I should say

that every human being in the conquered territories knows that he can

be imprisoned without trial, that he can be deported, that he can be

arbitrarily punished and this is the greatest violation of human rights.

It places all those people•more than a million people•in a state which

I am not ashamed to call "servitude," or "slavery." They have no guarantee whatsoever for any sort of personal security.

If a man can live in the city and be the next day forever expelled,

this is slavery or servitude. This is what is described in the literature

about slavery in America and about black slaves being sold "down the

river," to use an expression from Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Senator ABOUREZK. Are you familiar, Dr. Shahak, with the supply

of water in the West Bank in any way or form ? Is it your view that

there is adequate water or a shortage of water?

Dr. SHAHAK. I am aware of certain areas about which I can testify•

the town and neighborhood of Ramallah and the Jordan Valley. However, apart from those two areas I did not make any particular research. About those two areas I am willing to testify.

Senator ABOTJREZK. Generally, do you know if the settlements being

established are hooking into the water table or water supply systems ?

Does this create a shortage of water for the existing residents of the

West Bank?

Dr. SHAHAK. In the Jordan Valley, definitely so.

In the other areas I did not see great signs of it. Also in other areas

the settlements are not agricultural to any great extent. I did not see

them taking very much water.

In the Jordan area, definitely so.

However, I would like to say something about Ramallah. I know the

situation very well there. The same thing, in my opinion, happens in

other cities.

As a means of pressuring towns like Romallah to join themselves

into water systems of the State of Israel, permits for water pumps or
22

extra water pumps are either not being given or being delayed by the

military governor.

I should explain that everything in the conquered territories needs

a permit. A city cannot buy a water pump without having the permission from the military governor. I should say that a municipality

cannot hire additional janitors without this permission.

It is my definite impression that the towns which are being pressured to be joined to the water system or to the electricity system of

Israel are not given permits for water pumps or machines for electricity or for spare parts for those machines or pumps in order to

compel them to join the electricity and water system in Israel.

I also can add to this what happened in the town of Hebron which

was compelled, more or less, by the system to join the electricity and

water system of Israel. The main connections of electricity and water

to Hebron are now situated in the settlement Kiryat Arba so that

anybody who sits in Kiryat Arba can at the moment close the electricity and water of Hebron. I believe this is the aim of the pressure.

Senator ABOTJREZK. DO you believe that part of this pressure is

designed by the Israeli Government to discourage the Palestinian

Arabs from staying in the West Bank so that they will leave; would

that be their objective ?

Dr. SHAHAK. If you speak about the intellectual and the middle

class, yes. If you speak about ordinary workers, no, because by now

there is a great number of Palestinian workers in territories working

inside Israel. According to an interview of the commander of the Tel

Aviv policy, Mr. Tiomkin, given on September 9 of this year in

Ha'aretz newspaper•in Tel Aviv alone there are 70,000 workers from

the territories. This means that in all area of Israel, in my opinion,

there would be something like up to 200,000. Therefore, while intellectuals are pressured directly or indirectly to leave•directly by being

imprisoned or deported, and indirectly by the economy being impoverished and not having any jobs for them to live•I think that by now

the State of Israel is quite interested that the ordinary people will

remain and will work in the Israeli economy.

Senator ABOTJREZK. But Israel doesn't want Palestinian political

leaders remaining on the West Bank; is that correct ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Yes. Anv political leaders of independence. I should

say that by now the State of Israel is creating something which can

be described as a class of quislings.

I will give one example. We have Abd El-Nur Ganmo. This man

assassinated another man in the town of Ramallah. His case was then

taken from the civil court into military court. The military court found

him acting in self-defense. This is a man who got enormously rich

because he was given monopoly of cooking gas from Israeli sources to

inhabitants of the district of Ramallah.

Other examples can be given in other territories. I believe that

especially now the Israeli Government is creating a class of quislings

which should not be confused by any means with the previous notables

of King Hussein. These last, are newly made men. Tn many cases they

are criminals, as I have said, and it is the aim, like in many other

atrocious colonial regimes, to make of those people leaders. If you

want examples Angola and Mozambique would be good examples. I
28

think that you know that in Soweto there is a strong attempt to take

criminal elements and to make them leaders of Soweto.

The same attempt is being made in the West Bank and in the Gaza

Strip now.

Senator ABOUREZK. You spoke briefly about the child labor violations that you thought were occurring in the West Bank. I wonder if

you would elaborate a little bit on that ?

Dr. SHAHAK. Not in the West Bank. The main area of child labor

exploitation is in the Egyptian territory in Sinai, northwestern Sinai

around the town of Yamit, one of the settlements.

The second area of exploitation of child labor from conquered territories is, as a matter of fact, in the State of Israel itself, in Israeli

villages in the south area of Israel between Bersheba and Rehorot,

especially in the area called the Lachish area. Very many cases were

quoted in the Israeli press. Many cases were recorded by me.

In this area you have first of all child labor and, second, you have

feudal subjection of whole families who are living usually under a

tree or in a cabin. When I say in a cabin I'm not quoting "Uncle Tom's

Cabin" in vain because I have seen those cabins and the pictures arelike the pictures of this book. They are in a state of such feudal subjection to the particular farmer that it happened very often that when

a boy escapes, let's say from such slavery, then the farmer or the son of

the farmer•and there was one example in which a farmer's son pursued an escaping bov and found him working for another farmer and

beat them to death. I can give this to you from the Israeli press. I also

investigated it myself.

The servitude of the children usually coming from the Gaza Strip

in northern Sinai and in this area and similar areas north of Israel is

one of the really horrid phenomena which I can say is a crime, crying

to God for vengeance. So I must say to you that I am really afraid

about my own people and those who help them in oppressing others

for those 10 years and helping in this child exploitation.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have one final question for you.

You have said that there is deportation without trial or hearing

and that there is imprisonment without trial or hearing. Are the residents of the occupied territories, the Palestinian Arabs, accorded any

of the standard rights, legal rights, or human rights that Israeli

citizens or people of the United States are accorded ?

Dr. SHAHAK. I think not. Israeli citizens cannot be deported. By

custom and not by law Israeli citizens for 5 full years are not imprisoned without trial and although the law exists but it is now never

invoked.

And I would say that the most important fact is in which they are

not accorded basic rights is that they cannot exercise any form of

basic democratic protest by formation of parties, associations, trade

union, cultural clubs, and so on. This, in my opinion, after 10 years

constitutes the most important grievance.

Permit me also to conclude by saying that if General MacArthur

after conquering Japan in 1945 would have denied to Japanese people

for more than 10 years such rights instead of allowing establishment

of democracy rather rapidly step by step, you would not have now

a Japanese State which is as friendly to the United States as it is now.
24

You would have something very much worse, worse both for the

Japanese people and for the United States. It is this very fact that I

can invoke the regime of MacArthur as the example of democracy

which should be followed at least for some the, first steps and after

10 years which shows the situation of the people there..

Senator ABOUREZK. Dr. Shahak, I want to express my personal

thanks to you and that of my committee for what I consider to be

a very courageous act. I happen to know how it feels to speak from

a minority point of view. As I understand it. that is the position which

you hold•one of a minority in Israel. I think you have served the

cause of human rights and the cause of justice very well in what you

have done and what you continue to do. I hope you will be able to

continue to speak out.

On behalf of the committee I want to thank vou very much for

your tremendous contribution which you have made in your testimony

here today.

Dr. SHAHAK. Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. Our next witness is Mr. Yehuda Zvi Blum,

professor of international law at Hebrew University.

I should make clear at this time that the committee notified the

Embassy of Israel to ask if it wanted to be represented at these hearings. The Embassy suggested Dr. Blum's testimonv but their position

is that he is not officially representing the Israeli Government.

Maybe you can explain who you are representing and please give

your background as well.

TESTIMONY OF YEHUDA ZVI BLUM, PROFESSOR OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW, HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Mr. BLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am indeed grateful to you for this point of clarification. I happen to be on university

business in this country at this point of time. It has been suggested to

me by our embassy that since the judicial status of the settlements in

Judea and Samaria has come up before this distinguished committee

and since this is a question I have examined in some detail in the past

3

r

ears, I might wish to testify before this committee.

May I start by expressing to you, Mr. Chairman, my appreciation for

having given me this opportunity to present to you my views on this

matter, to which, as I have said, I have given considerable attention

over the past 10 years or so.

Since you have asked me also to give you briefly my credentials may

I say that I am a professor of international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and also director of the Harry Sacher Institute for

Legislative Research and Comparative Law at the Hebrew University.

I do not like to trade on my own background, but since this seems to

be the proper practice here, as I have gathered from your ouestion to

the previous speaker, may I just briefly say that I was born in Czechoslovakia. I was detained by the Germans in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1944. Subsequently I was a refugee in Switzerland

in 1945 and came to Palestine as it then was in the same year of 1945.1

have been a resident and citizen of Israel ever since its inception.
25

I have resided permanently in Israel since 1948 and except for a

number of trips abroad for study and teaching purposes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Mr. Blum, it is my understanding that you were

in the same prison camp at the same time in Germany that Dr. Shahak

was; is that right ?

Mr. BLUM. This is correct. I did not know Dr. Shahak at the time

because he belonged to what was called the Polish camp and I was in

the Hungarian camp. We may have been 100 yards apart from one

another without knowing each other at the time. I met Dr. Shahak

subsequently in 1945 in Palestine. I have known him ever since.

May I devote this opening statement of mine to the question of the

legality of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria as well as to the

broader problem underlying this question•that is the status of Judea

and Samaria under international law.

Mr. Chairman, I have had the benefit of reading the transcript

of a statement made here at an earlier meeting by Mrs. Rita Hauser. I

would like to associate myself with that passage of her statement in

which Mrs. Hauser interpreted article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Red

Cross Convention of 1949, assuming of course that the convention in

question is indeed applicable to the problem here under consideration.

Let me briefly point out my point of view on this matter. The Red

Cross Conference at which the Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted

was convened only 4 years after the end of World War II when the

events of that war were still fresh in the memory of the conference

participants. Everyone at that time remembered the policies of Nazi

Germany which strove methodically for the mass expulsion of population groups from their lands (as in Poland) and for the settlement

of Germans in those areas in place of the original inhabitants.

Even the official Red Cross interpretation of article 49 clearly states

that the purpose of the provision here under discussion, that is article

49, was to insure that such phenomenon of so-called colonization

should not occur.

It is quite clear in my view that these circumstances have no bearing

upon the establishment of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria

if only for the simple reason that the establishment of these settlements does not entail the expulsion of the local population from its

land and from its places of residence.

May I, therefore, briefly remind this committee of Mrs. Hauser's

conclusions, with which I happen to concur, and which seem to be a

correct description of the position of contemporary international law

on this matter.

This is what Mrs. Hauser said: "An overall reading of article 49 as

well as of the official ICRC commentary to it, make clear the reference

to the type of deportations practiced by the Nazis in World War II.

These were in the nature of mass transfers of people for forced labor

or death camps. It can be argued that this article is intended only to

preclude the transfer of the occupied population into the territory

from which it has displaced the local population. The movement of

the occupied population into unpopulated areas involving no local

displacement is not then a violation of article 49.

"I believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of article 49." The

Oppenheim-Lauterpacht Treaties which is one of the leading treaties

in contemporary international law, supports this view.
26

She then quoted from the Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, volume II,

seventh edition, page 452:

The occupying power must not deport or transfer part of its own civilian

population into the territory occupied by him, a prohibition intended to cover

cases of the occupant bringing in its nationals for the purpose of displacing the

population of occupied territories.

I would reemphasize this: "for the purpose of displacing the population of the occupied territories."

So, I believe that even on the assumption that for some reason the

Fourth Geneva Red Cross Convention were applicable to Israel's

rights in Judea and Samaria, the establishment of Israeli settlements

there would still not be in violation of the said article.

However, beyond this specific remark which refers to the correct

interpretation of article 49,1 believe a broader question is raised here

which warrants further examination.

In my opinion, Israel cannot be regarded as an "occupying power"

in Judea and Samaria, nor can those areas be viewed as occupied territory held by the State of Israel, not only as regards article 49 but in

all matters relating to the Fourth Geneva Convention in general and

even in all applications of international law of belligerent occupation

in the broader sense.

The terms "occupying power" and "occupied territory" are technical

terms with a very well-defined meaning in international law.

They refer to a situation in which, as the result of hostilities between

two states, one of them seizes control of the territory which is under

the sovereignty of the other. Such areas thus become occupied territories, and the state which controls them assumes the status of an

occupying power together with all the rights and obligations which

flow from this status.

However, actual sovereignty over such areas is not transferred by

one state to another as the result of the change of physical control over

them. The legitimate sovereign, as is the legal and technical term on

this matter; that is, the state whose forces have been driven out of the

occupied territory, retains its sovereignty over thisterritory even after

its physical removal from it and the annexation ofsuch territory by the

occupant is absolutely prohibited.

The purpose of these rules of international law of belligerent occupation is to protect the rights of the sovereign from the occupant.

Article 49 must also be understood as one of the rules intended to

achieve this goal.

And yet, in all matters relating to Judea and Samaria, and the same

argument applies also to the Gaza Strip, the circumstances envisioned

by the Fourth Geneva Red Cross Convention do not exist because the

situation here is not one in which a legitimate sovereign and an occupying power are confronting one another.

In order to understand this particular situation, we have of course

to recall that during the mandate period, the period of the British

mandate over Palestine, which ended in 1948, Judea, Samaria, and the

Gaza Strip formed an integral part of the Palestine mandate. In the

well-known resolution 181-(II) of November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly recommended that the British mandate be terminated

and that Palestine be partitioned into a Jewish State, an Arab State,
27

and the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, the three regions to

be linked by an economic and monetary union.

The Jewish agency, which represented the Jewish side in the deliberations concerning the future of Palestine, expressed at that time its

readiness to accept the partition resolution as a compromise between

conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs.

This readiness on the Jewish part was forthcoming despite the fact

that it would have involved a second and very considerable reduction

in the size of the territory earmarked for Jewish rule as compared with

the original Jewish national home of the Palestine mandate.

The original Palestine mandate, may I add here, comprised both

Palestine and Transjordan, but under article 25 of the Palestine mandate Great Britain was empowered to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the mandate as she might consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions in the territories lying between

the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine that is Transjordan.

Pursuant to this provision, Great Britain in 1921 decided, with the

consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to exclude the territory of the Palestine mandate lying to the east of the Jordan Kiver,

which is Transjordan, from the application of the mandate provisions relative to the establishment of the Jewish national home.

As a result of that British decision, the territory earmarked for the

Jewish national home was reduced to about one-fourth of its original

size and that is western Palestine. Only slightly more than half of this

remaining one-fourth which is about one-eighth of the original Palestine mandate would have become the Jewish state under the partition plan of the U.N. General Assembly.

No less painful for the Jewish side in 1947 was the fact that Jerusalem with its considerable Jewish majority•and Jerusalem has had

an uninterrupted Jewish majority for at least the last 130 years•and

with the unique place the Holy City has occupied in the hearts and

minds of Jews for three millennia was to be excluded from the territory of the projected Jewish state and was to become an internationalized territory. It was to become an enclave within the contemplated Arab State.

However, all these concessions of the Jewish side were made conditional on the reciprocal acceptance of the partition package deal by

the Arabs. No such acceptance on the Arab side was forthcoming. The

Arabs of Palestine as well as the neighboring Arab States categorically

rejected the partition plan and were not prepared to settle for anything

less than an independent state of Palestine to be ruled in its entirety

by the Arabs.

Thus, at a meeting of premiers and foreign ministers of Arab League States held in Cairo between December 8 and 17, 1947, following

the adoption by the General Assembly of the partition recommendation, it was decided that the Arabs were "determined to enter battle

against the United Nations decision to partition Palestine and by the

will of God to carry itto a successful conclusion."

At the same meeting it was also agreed to take "decisive measures'*

to prevent the partition of Palestine and the General Assembly's resolution on this matter was defined as "a violation of the principles

of right and justice."
28

Arab opposition to the United Nations' partition plan was not confined to statements and declarations. It was manifested in acts of

violence that began on November 30, 1947, some 12 hours after the

adoption by the General Assembly of the partition recommendation.

These acts of violence sponsored by the Higher Arab Committee which

was recognized by Great Britain as the representative body of the

Palestinian Arabs and which incidentally was headed at the time by

Haj Amin-Husseini who spent the war years in Germany and was

instrumental in promoting the mass extermination policies of the Germans against the Jews•soon assumed with the aid and abetment of

the neighboring Arab States such proportions that it threw Palestine

into a state of virtual chaos and anarchy.

In its first special report to the Security Council, dated February

16, 1948, the United Nations Commission on Palestine, set up under

the partition resolution, informed the Council that:

Powerful Arab interests both inside and outside Palestine are defying the

resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter

by force the settlement envisaged therein. (U.N. Document S/676).

Some 7 weeks later in a report dated April 10, 1948, to the second

special session of the U.N. General Assembly convened to discuss the

developments in Palestine, the commission already advised the General Assembly that the implementation of the partition resolution as a

whole, including the establishment of the international special regime

for Jerusalem, had been thwarted by Arab violence. In this report the

commission pointed out:

opposition to the resolution of November 25, 1947, has stated in the form of armed

resistance. It is not only the Arab States envisaged in the resolution which cannot

now be constituted according to the partition plan, but the establishment of the

Jewish state and of the international regime for the city of Jerusalem are also

obstructed by Arab resistance.

Arab opposition to the plan of the Assembly as stated in the formal organized

efforts by strong Arab elements both inside and outside Palestine to prevent its

implementation and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence including repeated armed incursions into Palestinian territory.

The judicial aspects of the Arab refusal to accept the partition plan

are very ably summed up by Professor Aleh Hulatapa of Cambridge

University in England. He says•

It is unfortunate that the Arabs rejected the resolution. They were to some

extent correct in their incidental assertion that the General Assembly was not

able of resolution to dispose in a binding manner of the whole or any part of

the territory of Palestine. Palestine was not the property of the U.N. to give or

withhold as it pleased. The role of the U.N. was a restricted one. Its acquiescence

in the termination of Britain of its obligations as mandatory * * * was a legal

necessity. Moreover, the Assembly could, by putting forward a plan which the

interested parties might accept, provide the legal basis for the settlement of the

future government of the country. But resolutions of the General Assembly do

not normally create legal obligations for the members of the U.N. (even if Israel

and the proposed Arab state had been members at that time, which thev were

not) ; and the partition resolution did not have a legislative character. The Assembly could not by its resolution give the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine any

rights which either did not otherwise possess; nor correspondingly could it take

away such rights as they did possess. (Lauterpacht, "Jerusalem and the Holy

Places," 1968, lb.)

Consequently, when the Palestine mandate was terminated on May

14,1948, the partition resolution had already been overtaken by events
29

and had been effectively frustrated through Arab opposition, as has

been pointed out by Lauterpacht in three out of its four major elements. No Arab State was established within Palestine. There thus

could be no economic union of the Arab and Jewish States. Further,

the physical attack by the Arab forces upon the Jewish State as such

left the Israeli forces with no option but to respond in kind and maintain such hold as they could upon the areas then in Jewish possession

to the point by way of defensive rationalization of their position of

moving in places beyond the lines laid down in the partition resolution.

Since the resolution failed to be implemented, its description of

specific boundaries ceased to be relevant. As a description of a particular boundary, they became worthless. Thus•

The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the partition

resolution of November 1947. The right of a state to exist flows from its factual

existence, especially when that existence is prolonged, shows every sign of continuance, and is recognized by the generality of nations. (Ibid. 19.)

In fact, Mr. Chairman, in those days, that is in 1948, there was little

doubt indeed in the minds of jurists and statesmen alike as to the

apportionment of blame for all these events and as to the proper legal

evaluation of the acts undertaken by the Arabs of Palestine and of

the neighboring Arab States upon the termination of the Palestine

mandate.

The non-Arab world was virtually unanimous in its condemnation

of the very presence of the military forces of the Arab States on

Palestinian soil since the forcible entry of those armies into Palestine

and the resulting military intervention was regarded as a use of force

in violation of the rule embodied in article II, paragraph 4 of the

United Nations' Charter.

The use of force by the contiguous Arab States having been illegal,

it naturally could not give rise to any valid legal title. As we jurists

say, "Ex injuria jus non oritur." (There cannot flow rights from a

wrongful act.)

The initial justification given by the Arab States for their armed

intervention atthe time wasthatthey had to enter Palestine•

to establish security and order in place of chaos and disorder which prevailed

in the face of brutal crimes against humanity in a contiguous country . . . They

deemed it their bounden duty to intervene in Palestine with the object of putting

an end to the massacres raging there and upholding law and principles recognized among the United Nations.

I quote here from an Egyptian communication to the Security Council dated May 15, 1948. (U.N. Document S/743.)

They also asserted, and here I am quoting from a Jordanian cablegram to the Security Council, "that they were compelled to enter

Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres." King Abdullah of TransJordan spoke of his awareness and "our national

duty toward Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular." (U.N.

Document S/748.)

It was the Ukrainian representative in the Security Council who

countered these attempts to justfy the illegal Arab intervention in

Palestine by rightly rejecting the assertion that•

The intervention has no other object in view than the restoration of security

and order in Palestine because it is known that according to the rules of the

international community each government has the right to restore order only

in its own territory. (Security Council, Official Records 292nd meeting, p. 25.)

20-488 0-18-3
He further stated that•

None of the states whose troops had entered Palestine can claim that Palestine

forms part of its territory. It is an altogether separate entity without any

relationship to the terroritories of the States which have sent their troops into

Palestine. (Ibid, 297th Meeting, p. 5.)

On May 27, 1948, that is 12 days after the termination of the

mandate, the Ukranian representative invited the Council to note•

The unlawful invasion by a number of states of the territory of Palestine

which does not form part of the territory of any of the states whose armed

forces have invaded it. (Ibid, 30th meeting, p. 7.)

When the Arabs became aware of the inherent legal weakness of their

initial argument of self-defense and restoration of law and order

in Palestine, they sought to shift it and to justify their armed intervention by reference to the provisions of chapter 8 of the United

Nations' Chapter concerning the regional arrangements. Under this

modified version of their argument, the Arab States maintained that

Palestine, being a member of the Arab League, and the Arab League

constituting a regional arrangement, article 52 of the charter applied

and that the neighboring governments which are members of the

Arab League consider themselves responsible for the maintenance of

security in their area as a regional organization in conformity with

the provisions of the United Nations' Charter.

This reliance by the Arab States on chapter 8 of the U.N. Charter

to justify their armed intervention in Palestine was shown by the

U.S. representative to be devoid of any legal merit. Senator Warren

Austin, the permanent representative of the United States to the

United Nations at the time stated before the Securiy Council that•

The Arab statements are the best evidence we have of the international

character of their aggression. They tell us quite frankly that their business

is political. Of course, the statement that they are there to make peace is

rather remarkable in view of the fact that they are waging war. (Ibid, 302nd

meeting, pp. 41-2.)

Keferring specifically to the reply sent by King Abdullah of Transjordan to questions addressed to him bv the Security Council•and

I emphasize this point because it was King Abdullah of Transjordan

who overran Judea and Samaria in 1948•Senator Austin stated

that the king's answer•

is characterized by a certain contumacy toward the United Nations and the

Security Council. He has sent us an answer to our questions addressed to him

as a ruler who is occupying land outside his domain by the Security Council,

a body which is recognized in the world to ask these questions of him. The

contumacy of that reply to the Security Council is the very best evidence of

the illegal purpose of his government in invading Palestine with armed forces

and conducting the war which it is waging there. It is against the peace. It is

not on behalf of peace. It is an invasion with a definite purpose. Therefore,

here we have the highest type of international violation of the law. The admission by those who are committing this violation. (Ibid.)

The U.S. representative also reminded the Arab States that their

intervention in Palestine could not be characterized as an action taken

under chapter 8 of the UN. Charter, for article 53 of the U.N.

Charter requires the prior authorization of the Security Council for

any enforcement action taken under regional arrangements or by a regional agency and no such authorization had been given to the armed

intervention into Palestine by the Security Council.
31

The concerted Arab attempt to crush Israel by unlawfully invading

Palestinian soil eventually failed, although some Palestinian territory, that is Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, remained in the

hands of the invading Arab armies.

The military realities prevailing at the time were reflected in the

armistice agreements concluded between February and July 1949 between Israel and each of her Arab neighbors. However, those agreements did not remove and were not intended to remove the illegality

of the presence of the invading Arab armies on the territory of the

former Palestine mandate.

For present purposes, we do not have to enter into the controversial

questions relating to the nature and scope of armistice agreements in

general. It is sufficient to confine ourselves here to a specific provision

contained in the Israel-Jordan general armistice agreement concerning the matter here under consideration. I am referring to article II,

paragraph 2, of the agreement which stipulates that•

No provision of this agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims,

and positions of either party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by

military considerations. (UNTS, Vol. 42, p. 306.)

It therefore follows that the effect of the Israeli-Jordan armistice

agreement (and similar provisions may also be found in the other armistice agreements concluded between Israel and the neighboring

Arab States) was to freeze, as it were, the rights and claims of the parties as they existed on the day of the agreement's conclusion. In consequence, no subsequent unilateral act could, as long as the agreement

remained in force, improve, affect, or alter the rights of any party

as they existed when the agreement was concluded.

The purported annexation by the Kingdom of Jordan of Judea and

Samaria in April of 1950 was therefore from the point of view of international law devoid of any legal effect. I might add parenthetically

that Egypt never claimed to have annexed the Gaza Strip.

This conclusion is warranted not only by the above quoted provision

of the Israel-Jordan general armistice agreement, but also by legal

considerations of a more general nature.

For the reasons elaborated by me so far, the most favorable construction from the Jordanian viewpoint that can be placed on the presence of armed elements of TransJordan on Palestinian soil after

May 15,1948, is that they enjoyed the rights of a belligerent occupant

within the meaning of thisterm under international law.

According to Prof. Julius Stone, one of the most eminent international law authorities of our time, the position of the State of Jordan

on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem insofar as it had a legal

basis in May 1967, rested on the fact thatthe State or Transjordan had

overrun this territory during the 1948 hostilities against Israel. It was

a belligerent occupant there. (Stone, The Middle East Under CeaseFire,1967,p. 12.)

It is a cardinal rule of the international law of belligerent occupation, as phrased by another eminent international lawyer of our time,

the late Lord McNair of Cambridge University and a former judge of

the International Court ofJustice, that•

Occupation does not displace or transfer sovereignty. The occupant is entitled

to exercise military authority over the territory occupied but he does not ac-
32

quire sovereignty unless and until it is ceded to him by a treaty of peace. (McNair, The Legal Effect of War, 3rd Ed., 1948, p. 320.)

The Finnish international lawyer Castren has -written one of the

better known treatises on belligerent occupation. He points out on

this matter that•

Sovereignty over occupied territory is not transferred to the occupying power.

Occupied territory may not be annexed and unilateral declarations to this effect

are consequently void of legal effect. (Castren. The Present Law of War d

Neutrality, 1954, pp. 215-6.)

Another consideration is that, according to the prevailing view, an

armistice agreement does not affect the status of the belligerent occupant who, unless otherwise stated in the agreement, remains bound in

respect of the occupied territory by the Hague regulations which

among other things also prohibit the annexation by the occupant of

occupied territory.

It follows from all this that just as the annexation of occupied territory by a belligerent occupant is obviously prohibited before the

ceasefire or armistice, it is equally prohibited under international

law after the ceasefire or armistice as long as they remain in force.

Thus, it should occasion no surprise that the resolution adopted on

April 24, 1950, in a joint session of both Houses of the Jordanian

parliament proclaiming "its support for complete unity between the

two sides of Jordan and the union into one state which is the Kingdom

of Jordan," has not met with international recognition. In fact, there

are only two states, as far as I could ascertain, who seem to have recognized this extension of the territory of the Kingdom of Jordan,

namely the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

But even the United Kingdom in 1950 excluded from the scope of

this recognition of the extension of Jordanian sovereignty eastern

Jerusalem.

Israel's reaction to this purported annexation by Jordan of Judea

and Samaria was expressed by the Israel foreign minister who told

the Knesset:

This is a unilateral act which in no way binds Israel. We have concluded an

armistice agreement with the government of the Kingdom of Jordan. We are

determined to abide strictly by its provisions. However, this agreement does

not constitute any final political arrangement. No such arrangement is possible

without negotiations between the parties and the conclusion of peace between

them. It must, therefore, be clear that the question of the Arab-inhabited territories west of the Jordan River remains open." (Divrei Haknesset, vol. 5, p.

1282.)

While Israel's negative reaction to the purported annexation by

Jordan of Judea and Samaria was not unexpected, the same cannot be

said of the reaction of the Arab States to these measures. They, too,

voiced their strong opposition to the Jordanian annexation measures

of April 1950. On April 13,1950, that is only 11 days before the adoption of the Jordanian parliamentary resolution referred to above, the

council of the Arab League decided that "annexation of Arab Palestine by any Arab State would be considered a violation of the League

charter and subject to sanctions."

Three weeks after the said proclamation in May 1950, the political

committee of the Arab League in an extraordinary session held in
Cairo decided without objection•and Jordan herself was absent from

the meeting•that Jordanian annexation measure constituted a violation of the council's resolution of April 13, 1950. It went on to consider the expulsion of Jordan from the League.

It was decided that the discussion of punitive measures be postponed

to another meeting set for June 12, 1950. At that meeting of the

League council it had before it a Jordanian memorandum asserting

that "annexation of Arab Palestine was irrevocable although without

prejudice to any final settlement of the Palestinian question."

This formula enabled the council to adopt a face-saving resolution

under which "it was decided to treat the Arab part of Palestine annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully

solved in the interests of its inhabitants."

Some 17 years later on May 31,1967, that is less than 1 week before

the outbreak of the Arab-Israel hostilities of June 1967, Jordan herself

seems to have called into question, unwittingly perhaps, the validity

of her annexation measures of April 1950 when her representatives

told the council:

There is an armistice agreement. The agreement did not fix boundaries. It

fixed the demarcation line. The agreement did not pass judgment on rights,

political, military, or otherwise. I know of no boundary. I know of a situation

frozen by an armistice agreement. (U.N. Document S/PV 1345, p. 47.)

If the analysis here submitted is correct, then the Kingdom of

Jordan never acquired the status of a legitimate sovereign over Judea

and Samaria. On the interpretation most favorable to the Kingdom of

Jordan, her rights over Judea and Samaria could thus not exceed

those of a belligerent occupant. That is its conclusion which is of decisive legal significance as regards to the nature and scope of the

present rights of Israel over these territories.

It will be clear already that the traditional rules of international

law governing belligerent occupation are based on a twofold assumption, namely that it was the legitimate sovereign which was ousted

from the territory under occupation, and that the ousting side qualifies

as a belligerent occupant with respect to that territory.

Accordmg to one of the better known American authorities on the

international law of belligerent occupation, belligerent occupation,

as regulated by customary and conventional international law, presupposes a state of affairs in which the sovereign, the legitimate government of the occupied territory is at war with the government of

the occupying forces. [Von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory, 1957, p. 273.]

This assumption of the concurrent existence in respect of the same

territory of both the ousted legitimate sovereign and the belligerent

occupant lies at the root of all those rules of international law which,

while recognizing and sanctioning the occupant's right to administer

the occupied territory, aim at the same time to safeguard the rights

of the ousted sovereign.

It would seem to follow that in a case like the present one where

the ousted state never was the legitimate sovereign, those rules of

belligerent occupation directed to safeguarding that sovereign's rights

simply cannot find application.

Consequently, Jordan is not entitled in respect of Judea and

Samaria to the reversionary rights of sovereignty which international
34

law confers on the legitimate sovereign vis-a-vis the belligerent occupant. Thus, whatever Jordanian rights existed in Judea and Samaria

on the eve of the June war of 1967 within the framework of the IsraelJordan general armistice agreement of 1949, ceased to exist when the

Jordanian forces were ousted from the said territories as a result of

the hostilities of June 1967.

This conclusion is warranted by the fact that the Jordanian attack

on the morning of June 5, 1967, along the Israel-Jordan armistice

demarcation line, was in the nature of a material breach of the IsraelJordan general armistice agreement, article I, paragraph 2, of which

had provided that "no aggressive action by the armed forces•land,

sea, or air•of either party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other."

As to the initiation of those hostilities by Jordan against Israel, we

have the admission of King Hussein himself, as well as the report by

the chief of staff of the U.N. truce supervision force in Jerusalem, the

Norwegian general, Odd Bull.

It is an accepted principle of international law which has now also

found expression in 1969 Vienna Convention of the law of treaties that

the material breach of the bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles

the other to invoke that breach as the ground for terminating the treaty

or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

The initiation by Jordan on June 5, 1967, of large-scale hostilities

against Israel as a result of which Jordan lost control of Judea and

Samaria was unquestionably in the nature of such a material breach

following which Israel denounced, as she was entitled to do, that she

regarded the armistice agreement with Jordan as terminated because

of this violation of the agreement by Jordan.

While Israel thus seized control of Judea and Samaria in 1967 in

lawful exercise of her inherent right of self-defense, which, as is well

known, is recognized also under article 51 of the U.N. Charter, the

origins of Jordanian rule in Judea and Samaria lay, as has been amply

shown above, in the aggression committed by Transjordan in 1948

against the newly born State of Israel. In the course of that aggression, Transjordan invaded the Palestinian territory.

Prof. Stephen Schwebel, formerly of Johns Hopkins University,

and currently the deputy legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State,

has succinctly pointed out the important legal consequences flowing

from this difference in the origins of the respective rights in East

Jerusalem and in the other regions of Palestine which were overrun

by the Arabs in 1948, and I quote him:

Having regard to the consideration that Israel acted defensively in 1948 and

1967, and her Arab neighbors acted aggressively in 1948 and 1967, Israel has

better title in the territory of what was Palestine than do Jordan and Egypt.

(64 AJIL (1970), pp. 346-7.)

Schwebel's assertion that Israel can show a better title than Jordan

or Egypt to any territory that lives within the boundaries of the

former Palestine mandate rests on solid legal foundations. It must be

remembered that title to territory is normally based not on a claim of

absolute validity•few such claims could be substantiated, not even

those of the United States of America to the territory which it holds•

but rather on one of relative validity.
35

Thus for example, in the Minquier's and Ecrelio's Case adjudicated

by the International Court of Justice in a territorial dispute of 1953

regarding certain islands in the English Chanel, the court, when called

upon to resolve the territorial dispute between Britain and France,

decided "to appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims to

sovereignty."

Since, in the present view, no state can make a legal claim to Judea

and Samaria that is equal to that of Israel, this relative superiority of

Israel may be sufficient under international law to make Israel's

possession of those territories virtually indistinguishable from an

absolute title to be valid erga omnes. The fact that Israel has so far

refrained from making full exercise of these rights beyond the

municipal limits of Jerusalem is perhaps best explained by the Israeli

Government's reluctance to close certain political options in any future

negotiations.

It is against the background of these legal considerations as distinct

from the political considerations underlying the resolutions of various

international bodies that the questions surrounding the juridical status

ofJudea and Samaria have to be viewed.

I would, therefore, conclude by saying that Israel cannot be considered as an occupying power within the meaning given to this term

in international law in any part of the former Palestine mandate,

including Judea and Samaria.

Also, as a result, Israel's right to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza

Strip are not subject to the limitations imposed by international law

on a belligerent occupant.

Thank you very much.

Senator ABOTJREZK. I have to say, Mr. Blum, that I happen to be a

lawyer myself and not an international lawyer, but that is one of the

most ingenious arguments I have ever heard to establish the claim of

Israel over those particular territories.

Mr. BLUM. I happen to be in good company with Prof. Stephen

Schwebel and Prof. Julius Stone, and Professor Lauterpacht who are

great international legal authorities, not political authorities. They

have given some time and reflection to this problem.

Senator ABOUREZK. YOU imply but do not state it directly, and you

seem to have left hanging the question of who has actual sovereignty

over the West Bank, the territory you call Judea and Samaria. Would

you say that Israel has absolute sovereignty over those territories ?

Mr. BLUM. Let me perhaps first react to the question of terminology•the territory which I call Judea and Samaria. It is only right

that we all call it Judea and Samaria for the simple reason that the

term "West Bank" is suggestive and really prejudices the issue which

we discuss here. It has no meaning except in the context of the West

Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan. This is precisely the question to

which I address myself here. Otherwise, geographically the West Bank

has no meaning. Tel Aviv and Haifa are as much on the West Bank of

the Jordan River as are Hebron and Nablus. Because of this I think

Judea and Samaria are the correct geographical descriptions of the

area which we are dealing with, just as we refer to the northern part

of Israel as Galilee and to the southern part of Israel as Negeb. It is

only appropriate for us to call the central part of what was Palestine

as Judea and Samaria. This is the neutral geographical description.
Senator ABOUREZK. If you accept the definition of Judea and

Samaria that Prime Minister Begin pronounces•that it is the historical land of Israel, isn't the use of your terminology calling it

Judea and Samaria presupposing the issue on the other side as

well?

Mr. BLUM. NO, sir. I do not think so. I would just as much call the

coastal plain of Sharon, the southern part the Negeb. I do not think

it really prejudges the issue on the Golan that we call it the Golan

Heights which is the correct geographical description of that region.

Coming now to the question of sovereignty, I would have to say

this. Yes, indeed, I consider Israel as the potential sovereign over

Judea and Samaria.

Senator ABOUKEZK. What does that mean, potential ?

Mr. BLUM. The moment Israel wishes to extend its law and jurisdiction and administration to Judea and Samaria, it is entitled to do

so and in fact this extension of Israeli sovereignty to any territory of

the former Palestine mandate effectively under Israeli control has been

recognized by the outside world. Ever since 1948 Israel has had effective control over various regions of the former Palestine mandate that

under the projected Jewish state of the partition recommendation

would have been situated beyond the boundaries of Israel•for instance, Western Galilee or Ben-Gurion International Airport.

If I correctly understand the position of those who oppose Israel

in the present day international arena, they basically call, at least

outwardly, for Israel's withdrawal to the former armistice demarcation lines and to convert those armistice demarcation lines into international boundaries. Those boundaries, of course, would include certain territories which came under Israeli jurisdiction precisely in the

same manner like Ben-Gurion International Airport and the city of

Jaffa and West Jerusalem and the Jerusalem corridor.

I see no difference from the legal point of view between the juridical

status of western Galilee and Nazareth, Ben-Gurion International

Airport, and Jaffa on the one hand, and Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem on the other. Once the armistice agreement was

terminated, we were back from the legal point of view to the situation

as it existed prior to the conclusion of the armistice agreement.

So, I see no obstacle from the legal point of view to Israel exercising

its law and applying its jurisdiction to any territory of the former

Palestine mandate without formally annexing it because I think the

term "annexation" would not be appropriate. A state annexes a territory that has been ceded to it by another state and which prior to that

cession had been part of the sovereign domain of the ceding state. This

is not the case with respect to Judea and Samaria. Therefore, I think

the correct construction is that Israel extends its administration and

jurisdiction to the formerly mandated territories in Palestine.

Senator ABOUREZK. Under your argument then, if a legal battle, if

I may call it that, to the West Bank falls, then Israel's legal title

to Galilee and to Ben-Gurion International Airport would also fall ?

Mr. BLUM. NO. This is not a correct reading and interpretation of

what I said.

Senator ABOUREZK. I thought that is what you said.
37

Mr. BLUM. I am not calling into question Israel's right. But what

I have been saying is that even the most extreme opponents of Israel

these days do not call into question Israel's eventual right to regard

Ben-Gurion International Airport as part of her sovereign territory.

But I have invited you, Mr. Chairman, to react in a similar manner

to the remaining parts of the Palestinian mandate because otherwise we would be selective. From the legal point of view this would

be hardly justifiable.

Senator ABOUREZK. What other parts of the Palestine mandate exist

which are not under Israeli control ?

Mr. BLUM. The former western Palestine mandate is now under

Israeli control. All of it, and as I say, I regard Israel's rights there as

better and superior to that of any other country.

Senator ABOTTREZK. I think you misunderstood me. Are there any

portions of the original mandate that are not under Israeli control ?

Mr. BLUM. Certainly, more than two-thirds of it.

Senator ABOUREZK. Would you define it?

Mr. BLUM. All east of the Jordan River.

Senator ABOUREZK. HOW far east?

Mr. BLUM. AS far as the Iraqi boundary because the original

Palestine mandate had boundaries with Lebanon and Syria in the

north, Iraq in the east, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the south, and

the Mediterranean in the west.

Senator ABOUREZK. SO then Israel has potential sovereignty over

thatterritory as well; is that correct ?

Mr. BLUM. NO ; I did not claim that. In 1946 the eastern part of the

Palestine mandate was separated from the rest of the mandate, that is,

two-thirds of the territories that were earmarked for the Palestine

mandate which is the Jewish national home, in 1922. They were then

detached in 1946 from western Palestine and an independent Arab

state, an independent Palestinian Arab state, was set up in more than

two-thirds of the Palestine mandate by Great Britain with the subsequent approval of the United Nations General Assembly.

So I do not question the validity of those measures. In fact, I believe that as a result of those measures of 1946 the Jordan River

became an international boundary for Jordan and Palestine alike

which Jordan could not lawfully transgress, could not lawfully cross

in 1948.

Senator ABOUREZK. In giving the historical background of this

controversy in the Middle East, you seem to have glossed over certain

facts which perhaps ought to be included. You use your stated facts as

a basis for the establishment of whatever territory Israel might want

within the area you defined as part of the original mandate subject to

potential sovereignty by Israel.

In your opinion as an international lawyer, does the U.N. Charter

allow the acquisition of territory by force or is it prohibited by the

charter ?

Mr. BLUM. I believe that under the U.N. Charter the acquisition of

territory, the acquisition of sovereignty, by force over foreign territory is absolutely prohibited.

Let me add this. It is precisely because of this view of mine that I

believe that Jordan, as a foreign occupant of Palestinian territory,
38

was precluded from acquiring sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

The U.N. Charter does not address itself•and I could supply you

with the necessary authorities on this point and there has been a lot

of writing on this subject recently•but the charter does not address

itself to the questions of belligerent occupation, but the rights of a

belligerent occupant are regulated by the documents governing belligerent occupation. The belligerent occupant's rights are lawful as

long as the status of military occupation is not replaced by a permanent arrangement, generally a peace treaty.

What I did, however, say•and I would like to reemphasize this•is

that I believe that as far as the territory of the former Palestine mandate is concerned•and now I am talking about western Palestine

which is less than one-third of the original Palestine mandate of

1922•and as far as the territory of the former Palestine mandate is

concerned Israel would not "acquire" sovereignty over those territories,

they not being foreign territories as regardsIsrael.

That is for the reasons I have tried to explain at some length and

which you were good enough to listen to patiently.

So, I believe that Israel would not be acquiring foreign territory

in Judea and Samaria. This does not fall within the said prohibition

of the U.N. Charter.

Incidentally, the United Nations Charter, to be very precise, speaks

of the prohibition of the use of force. The prohibition of the acquisition of territory by the use of force is something that has been logically

concluded from it. It is not laid down in so many words in the charter. If you want to be accurate about that that is the way itis.

Senator ABOUREZK. Then to try to establish and include some of the

facts which were omitted from the testimony, do you believe that the

establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 was done under the provisions of the United Nations Charter or in violation of the charter ?

Mr. BLUM. No state is established under the charter or in violation

of the charter, simply because, as far as international law is concerned, states are born out of wedlock so to speak. States are not born

in conformity with the existing legal framework. For instance, the

United States of America was not born exactly in conformity with

the laws governing at the time in this part of the world. It was an uprising against the legitimate sovereign. I do not mean to decry or to

deplore that action that was taken 200 years ago. I simply point out

the fact that, as far as international law is concerned, every state is as

legal or illegal, as you want to view it, from the point of view of international law.

This applies to all Latin American States. This applies to the Soviet

Union which regards itself as a new state having broken the constitutional continuity with its predecessor. This applies to Red China. This

applies to Africa and practically to the whole world. It even applies

to the old countries like Britain and France with one important difference that they are old enough and they are so old that at the time

of their birth when the deficiencies and defects of their birth from

the point of view of internatonal law could have been detected, the

mass media, the television people, were not around.

So, it is a little bit more difficult to document.

Senator ABOUREZK. But what we are talking about, Mr. Blum, is

not what happened 200 years ago. But because of states conquering,
39

annexing or making other states part of their own territory 100 or

200 years ago, the U.N. Charter was drafted and signed by most of

the nations of the world.

I think we have to talk in terms of whether or not we intend to live

up to the principles of that charter. Do we, at some point in the 20th

century, after the signing of the U.N. Charter, then stop acquiring

territory by force or do we ignore the charter and make exceptions for

various countries, for Israel, for example ? This is what we need to talk

about. This is what my question is directed to.

Let me ask this recurring question. If the U.N. Charter, either by

implication or by direct enunciation, prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, doesn't that, even under your own terms, call into

question the original establishment of Israel as a State by a matter of

force of arms in 1947 and 1948 ?

Mr. BLUM. NO, not at all. I think I have given some quotations from

the Security Council records to point out that it was very surely the

consensus of the membership of the United Nations in 1948 that it was

not the State of Israel that was created as a result of an unlawful

use of force but, quite to the contrary, because of the Arab use of force

in 1948, there was such an unlawful use of force. I have extensively

quoted from a statement made by the then representative of the

United States in the United Nations. I have given the quotation from

his counterpart, not from the Soviet Union but from the Ukraine,

whatever the differences may be between the Soviet Union and the

Ukraine.

This was virtually the consensus of the membership of the United

Nations in 1948 that the State of Israel was defending itself against

an unlawful aggression committed against the State of Israel from

the very moment of its inception.

Senator ABOUREZK. In spite of what you say the consensus of opinion was at the time, I think you ought to concede that Israel was not

established as a result of a democratic election. Won't you concede

that?

Mr. BLUM. I find this a curious argument, if I may say so.

With due respect, as far as I know, Israel is the only State in the

Middle East which has had uninterruptedly democratic universal elections ever since 1949.

Senator ABOUREZK. Would that include all the residents of that

area?

Mr. BLUM. All the residents of the State of Israel•Jews and nonJews alike.

Senator ABOUREZK. Including the ones driven out ?

Mr. BLUM. May I add here that we would have loved to have had our

general elections not in 1949 but at some earlier date. We could not

do that because we were engaged in a war of self-defense and fighting

for our very lives. Therefore, it was a provisional Government of

Israel that ruled until January 1949. However, even the provisional

Government of Israel grew out of the elected representation of the

Jewish community in Palestine, elected by the Jewish community of

Palestine during the mandate period.

As far as international law is concerned, general elections are not

a precondition for the legality of the state. If you look around the

world
40

Senator ABOUKEZK. I'm notsaying that.

Mr. BLUM. YOU have 120 out of 150 states which have dubious elections if they have them at all.

Senator ABOUREZK. Let's go back to the simple point. I asked you

if Israel had indeed established itself as a state as a result of force.

You will not talk about that. Then I asked you if it was done through

elections and you wouldn'ttalk about that.

How were they established if they were not established either way ?

Mr. BLUM. The answer is very simple. Practically every state, with

the exception of the select fortunate few like Lichtenstein and Monaco

and Luxembourg and perhaps a few other ministates, practically all

states have to assert their existence also through the insistence on

physical force and the will to defend themselves.

I'm dealing with different aspects of the situation. I am dealing

with the legal aspects. If the legal aspects would not have been backed

up and supported by the physical strength of the State of Israel, then

obviously I would not sit here in front of you here today to speak

about the sovereignty of Israel on any part of the Palestine mandate.

That is true of any given country.

Senator ABOUREZK. This is true of Israel; right ?

Mr. BLUM. Itis true of any country.

Senator ABOUREZK. I understand that. But is it true of Israel ?

Mr. BLUM. If its rights are not supported by physical force, then

those rights will be kept in abeyance, I would suspect, by the international community.

Senator ABOUREZK. I think we have established that Israel established itself as a state through the use of force.

Mr. BLUM. NO ; Israel established itself like any other state from the

point of view of international law because the State of Israel, like

any other state, had to meet, and met, the requirements of statehood

as laid down in any textbook of international law which are certain

well-defined territories, citizens who are willing to accept the allegiance to the state, an effective administration, and recognition by the

international community. Israel is no different from any other state.

The fact that Israel had to fight a war of self-defense from the moment of its inception is a curious way of challenging Israel's right to

exist. I wish we didn't have to fight that war of independence in 1948.

Senator ABOUREZK. I think you probably had to fight because the

State of Israel, in its present form, could not have been established

with an election of the people there. I would submit that the reason

it could not is because the Palestinian-Arab population was in a majority at that time until they were driven out in sufficient numbers to

make itself the minority.

Mr. BLUM. We could not have established in 1948 the State of Israel

without fighting for its existence and its independence because the

neighboring Arab States and the Arabs of Palestine were opposed to

the recommendation of the U.N. General Assembly that would have

partitioned Palestine for a second time and would have left seveneighths of the original Palestine mandate in Arab hands. They were

not content with having seven-eighths of it. They wanted all eighteighths of it. That was the reason.

Senator ABOUREZK. But in view of the fact that the U.N. resolution

is recommending the partitioning and it is not binding•and you said
41

that in your testimony•then the only other alternative, other than

fighting and taking the territory by force in order to establish the

State of Israel, would be to hold an election of some sort. Isn't that

accurate ?

Mr. BLUM. NO ; itis not.

Senator ABOUREZK. What other way could you have done it withoutthe use of force ?

Mr. BLUM. I am trying to differentiate between the use of force,

which is generally speaking unlawful under the U.N. Charter, and

the use of force in self-defense which is mentioned under article 51

of the U.N. Charter.

All the authorities, except for the Arab authorities on this matter

and including the Eastern European authorities in 1948, were agreed

that it was the Arab States who used unlawful force in violation of

article II, paragraph 4, of the charter and it was the State of Israel

that was exercising its right of self-defense. I find it very difficult to

turn this construction around.

Senator ABOUREZK. I don't think I started turning things around.

It wasn't I who started it.

You are ignoring, if I am not mistaken, the use of force by the

Jewish settlement at the time. There were three distinct, separate

armed forces units operating before the State of Israel was established•the Haganah, the Stern, and the Irgun. They had operated

for a number of years and they were using force. In fact, the terrorist

groups were using force to drive the British out; isn't that right?

Mr. BLUM. The various Jewish underground movements, not so

much the Haganah except for a short period of time, but definitely

the other two organizations which you mentioned. They did use force

with the view to removing British presence from the territory of the

former Palestine mandate.

Senator ABOUREZK. For a specific reason to establish Israel; isn't

that right?

Mr. BLUM. Yes, and it is only fair to point out that they claimed at

the time that the sole justification for British presence in Palestine,

which was not part of the British sovereign domain, was to encourage

the establishment of the Jewish national home in Palestine. The

moment that Britain reneged on this international obligation of hers

which was the sole source of her rule in Palestine, she was not entitled

to remain there. So, that was the justification for using force by the

Jewish underground movements against the British.

But strictly speaking, I think this is irrelevant when it comes to

discussing the question oefore us. The question before us is a different

one.

Senator ABOUREZK. It is relevant in terms of using a partial set of

facts for the basis of your legal argument giving Israel a right to

practically anything within its vision.

Mr. BLUM. May I point outthe distinction ?

Senator ABOUREZK. Certainly.

Mr. BLUM. The distinction is that we have, for present purposes, to

distinguish between the international use of force and civil disorders

not amounting to an international use of force. The U.N. Charter and

international law are not concerned basically with internal disturb-
42

ances. For instance, the Baader-Meinhof disturbances in Germany

are not a matter, as long as it is confined to Germany, for international

law.

International law becomes interested in violence and the use of force

whenever ittranscends national boundaries.

This was the case in 1948, as far as Arab military intervention in

Palestine was concerned. These were outside powers who, according

to some speakers in the Security Council and elsewhere in 1948, had

no legitimate business on Palestinian soil.

Senator ABOUBEZK. That brings up another question, Professor

Blum.

You say that Israel has a right to potential sovereignty over anything within the mandated power. You justified the establishment of

settlements on those territories based upon that legal premise. What

aboutthe Sinai ? Wasthat part of the mandate ?

Mr. BLUM. NO ; it was not.

Senator ABOUBEZK. Israel has settlements on the Sinai, doesn't it?

Mr. BLUM. Yes.

Senator ABOUBEZK. HOW can you justify that?

Mr. BLUM. I would certainly not apply this argument to the Sinai.

I would have to say one thing. As far as the interpretation of article

49 is concerned, as was suggested to this distinguished committee by

Mrs. Hauser

Senator ABOUBEZK. I am sorry but that was a House committee. She

didn't testify here but in the House of Representatives. That's all

right; go ahead.

Mr. BLUM. I see.

But as far as article 49 is concerned, the interpretation offered by

Mrs. Hauser, with which I happen to associate myself, also finds

application in the Sinai.

Senator ABOUBEZK. It is perfectly legal to do it because Israel is

exempted from article 49 of the Red Cross Convention ?

Mr. BLUM. NO, not that it is exempted. These were not my words.

What I said was that article 49 envisions certain situations of the displacement of the local population for the purpose of the mass transfer

of the occupiers' population into occupied territory.

What I am suggesting is that, given the figures which were given

by Mrs. Hauser, and given the situation on the ground, the situation

envisioned by article 49 does not apply.

I would add one more word of caution. I say this merely as a word

of caution. I have not gone into this question. I have not gone into the

question as to the length of the duration of the belligerent occupation

provisions of international law. Belligerent occupation exceeding a

long period of time simply cannot work under the same constraints

as the normal belligerent occupation, if the term "normal" can be

applied to a situation of this kind. Obviously the Red Cross Convention and other international instruments have in view the "normal"

situation under which the hostilities are ceased or terminated and you

have an interim period of a few weeks or months of belligerent occupation followed by peace negotiations which finally dispose of the

territory.
43

The longer such a situation lasts, the more difficult it becomes. This

is recognized also by certain provisions of these conventions, that it

becomes more difficultto abide literally by those provisions.

Also, in order to protect the interests of the local population, you

have this situation. So, we would have to look into this aspect of the

duration of an occupation. I must confess I have not looked sufficiently

into that problem to enable me to intelligently react to this matter.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have one other question. If we accept your

argument that Israel has a form of modified sovereignty or potential

sovereignty over the West Bank, do you have any comment or observation then on the treatment by the Israeli government of its citizens

there ? There is a total denial of legal rights and human rights. Do you

approve of that or disapprove ?

Mr. BLUM. What I said was that Israel has not extended its law,

jurisdiction, or administration to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip,

obviously.

The residents of those territories are overwhelmingly Jordanian citizens. The situation de facto is that Israel behaves in that territory toward the local population as if it were bound by the Fourth Geneva

Convention and all its humanitarian provisions.

The Fourth Geneva Convention•and I was literally astonished to

listen to the previous speaker on this matter because obviously he ignored this when he spoke about certain political rights•the Fourth

Geneva Red Cross Convention envisions a situation under which the

local population would not be entitled to full political rights because

of the unusualsituation in which it findsitself.

What the Fourth Geneva Red Cross Convention is concerned with

are civil and religious rights, property rights, the right of access to

courts, and so on. I think Israel's record on these matters is not something that can be derided in the manner in which the previous speaker

has done it.

When he speaks about political demonstrations and the like, then

obviously we are shifting to a different sphere. We are shifting to

the political rights which are invariably curtailed in occupied territories by the State that at least for the moment does not claim sovereignty and has not turned the population into its citizens.

That was the situation in Germany between 1945 and 1949. That

was the situation in Japan of MacArthur during the first years of

American occupation in Japan.

I think Israel is no exception except perhaps for one important

point. Israel has given a great amount of freedom of movement from

the territories to the neighboring countries, back and forth. You will

not find many other countries in the world where, before the conclusion of peace, you would find so many tourists coming to the occupied territories from enemy countries as you find in the case of Israel,

in spite of all the security risks involved.

Senator ABOUREZK. I would like to ask you again if you approve

or disapprove of the denial of legal rights and human rights of the

people living in the West Bank?

Mr. BLUM. The way the question is phrased reminds me of the

question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
44

Senator ABOUREZK. Perhaps you could rephrase the question for

me.

Mr. BLUM. The way you ask the question, Mr. Chairman, is "Do I

approve the denial of human rights?" It would seem to presuppose the

fact that there is such a thing. I wouldn't want these words to be put

in my mouth.

Senator ABOUREZK. There has been ample evidence of it. We have

the previous witness. There have been innumerable television and

newspaper reports about the denial of human rights.

In fact, I personally know of the former president or existing

president of Birzeit University who told me that he was taken summarily with a bag over his head and dumped across the Lebanese

border in the middle of the night with no trial and no hearing and

no charges. Let's take that one example. Do you approve of that I

Mr. BLUM. DO you want me to specifically react to that question

of deportation?

Senator ABOUREZK. Yes.

Mr. BLUM. Let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman. The deportation

provisions are to be found in the emergency regulations which we inherited from the British mandatory authorities and which in turn

both Israel and Jordan inherited in their respective parts of Palestine which they controlled after 1948.

These emergency regulations are on the statute book also in Israel

to the present day. It is not correct to state that they have been

abolished in Israel. I for one would be happy if they were abolished,

but it so happens that for a variety of reasons successive Israeli Govvernments have not done so.

So, these deportations are not something that Israel has thought up

and invented. In fact, this as I said is inherited from the British

mandate period. It is the law, the local law, as we found it in Judea

and Samaria in June 1967.

As far as the deportations are concerned, it is a curious deportation indeed•as I might add•when you take a Jordanian citizen and

you put him across the Jordan River and you send him to Jordan.

This has happened in most of the cases involved. There have been

about 100•I don't think I have an accurate figure but I think it is

close•but it is only fair that we mention the numbers involved. I

think there have been about 100 deportations of this kind of about

100 individuals, and except for 2 or 3 they were all sent to Jordan,

to their country of nationality. So it is not being sent into exile.

Senator ABOUREZK. I assume they have a home in Jordan?

Mr. BLUM. With regard to these two or three cases of people being

sent to Lebanon instead of Jordan, there was strong criticism in Israel

at the time on the ground that it would have been preferable from a

legal point to send them to their country of national origin rather

than to a country which would have been a foreign country from

a legal point of view. Some displeasure has been expressed over these

deportations by the Israeli Supreme Court atthe time.

Senator ABOUREZK. I find the rationale for taking a person out of

his home where he is living on the West Bank and dumping him in

Jordan simply because that happens to be his passport nationality before 1967 isstretching it very thin, extremely thin.
Mr. BLUM. I find that is a very unhappy situation the world over.

I think to try to apply to the State of Israel the whole gamut of international sets and standards as they apply in the country which

fortunately has never been invaded by any foreign country for the

last 160 years, that is to try to apply all these rules in their entirety

to a country which in its 29 years of existence has not had one day

of peace and which is constantly threatened to the present day with

destruction by some states at least and some organizations at least is

a little bit surprising.

Senator ABOUREZK. It is not surprising in view of the fact that we

constantly hear from Israel's supporters that it is a truly democratic

country which treats its Arabs very properly. We hear that constantly.

Of coure, that is subject to change and I was trying to raise that

question here today.

So, on the one hand if somebody points out that their Arabs are not

being treated properly, then the excuse is that we are at war. I think

we ought to go back further. You attempted to talk around this.

You have attempted to talk around this but the fact is that Israel

is at war simply because it took territory by force. I hope you will not

expect people to give you an award for that. At least I would hope not.

The resistance to Israel taking that territory by force is what causes

the fighting today and will cause it in the future. I hope that you or

Israel would get an award, an international award, for taking the territory from somebody else.

Instead you are getting what one would expect and that is continued

warfare. I don't know what else you would expect from it.

Mr. BLUM. I think it is misleading to assume that the taking of a

territory by Israel in 1967 created the tension between the Israelis

and the neighboring countries. This is losing sight of the true historical perspective. It was in 1948 that the Arabs begrudged any territory of Palestine to the Jews.

Wherever we would have established our ministate on any part of

the Palestine mandate the Arabs would have begrudged it for the

simple reason that they have never come to grips with the existence of

a Jewish people as distinct from a Jewish religion. It has been their

position all along that Judaism is merely a religion and as such is not

entitled to a state of its own, irrespective of its boundaries.

The 1967 war and the taking of territories is a result, not a cause,

of this unhappy situation.

I am definitely certain that Israel is a democratic state, one of the

very few democratic states, unfortunately, left in our world. But it is

a democratic state of war and just as Great Britain, which never ceased

to be a democratic state not even during World War II, had to take

certain measures that the Britains would not have taken in peacetime•

so the State of Israel equally has had to resortto certain measures, wartime measures. This does not imply, as you seem to have assumed, Mr.

Chairman, that Israel has been treating its Arabs•and I think you

spoke of "their Arabs or the Arabs of Israel." We have not deprived

them of their human rights.

When you speak of Israel's Arabs, I think you have in mind the

citizens of Israel of Arab origin. We have about half a million of

them.

20-188 O - 78 •
46

These people enjoy the full protection of Israeli law although they

are exempted from some duties under Israeli law such as the duty of

military service. They serve in the defense forces on a voluntary basis

only. There are some who do that.

Senator ABOUKEZK. Can those Arabs form their own political

parties ?

Mr. BLUM. Yes, indeed. They have done so in the past.

Senator ABOUREZK. Which parties are formed by those Arabs ?

Mr. BLUM. There are a number of Arab members of the Knesset.

Senator ABOUREZK. I know that but they are members of an existing

political party.

Mr. BLUM. I'm sorry. They represent Arab tickets and they run on

Arab lists and not on Jewish lists.

Senator ABOUREZK. YOU say the Arabs are entitled to form political

parties of their own ?

Mr. BLUM. We're not talking about the Arabs of Israel. We're talking about the citizens of Israel. They are not only entitled to do so

but they have done so. They have run on various separate Arab platforms and Arab lists. They have been elected to the Knesset. We nave

had a deputy speaker, an Arab, of the Knesset who came to the Knesset

on an Arab list. We have had a deputy minister of health, an Arab who

incidentally did not run on an Arab list but on a Jewish list. He was

an Arab representative on a Jewish list.

So I think it is inaccurate to say that Arabs are not entitled to form

political parties. They have done so.

Senator ABOUREZK. Can you give me the name of an Arab political

party?

Mr. BLUM. Progress and Enlightenment•they usually have double

names. The Bedouins of the Negeb are usually running on a separate

list of their own. Fraternity and Peace and names like that.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you.

Well, I have no more questions. I want to express my thanks to you

for your appearance. We appreciate it very much.

Our final witness today will be Prof. W. T. Mallison, professor of

law and director of the international and comparative law program at

George Washington University here in Washington, D.C. Professor

Mallison is a specialist on the legality or illegality of West Bank

settlements.

Professor Mallison, we would like to welcome you at this time. You

may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF W. T. MALLISON, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW CENTER

PROGRAM, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

Mr. MALLISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Since there are basic differences between Professor Blum and myself,

I want to point out to you that these differences are professional ones.

I have had the pleasure of having Dr. Blum speak in my international

law classes at George Washington and present the Zionist views. I
47

hope very much that he will do that again while he is here in Washington.

It is a privilege to appear before this subcommittee and to make a

statement on this important subject of the international humanitarian

law for the protection of civilian persons in occupied territories.

I. INTRODUCTION : THE HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT OF THE GENEVA

CIVILIANS CONVENTION

The four Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of

August 12, 1949, were written in the shadow of the Second World

War. The first of these Conventions is for the protection of wounded

and sick military personnel, including aviators, in land warfare; the

second is for the protection of wounded, sick and shipwrecked personnel, including aviators, in naval warfare; and the third protects prisoners of war. The fourth convention is the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, [1955]

3 U.S.T. 3515, T.I.A.S. No. 3365, 75 U.N.T.S. 287. The present analysis is based upon the primary legal sources which govern the matter

and particularly emphasizes the Geneva Civilians Convention of 1949.

All four of these Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War

Victims have been ratified by the U.S. Government as treaties and are

part of the supreme law of the land under the supremacy clause of

the U.S. Constitution. These same four Conventions have been ratified

by all of the state parties to the continuing hostilities in the Middle

East. In addition, the Palestine Liberation Organization has deposited

an instrument of accession to the four Geneva Conventions.

The international humanitarian law of armed conflict for the protection of war victims, which includes the customary law on the subject

as well as conventional or treaty law, is human rights law in the

most fundamental sense. It provides a basic or minimum standard of

human rights protections for individuals which are to be applied in

the situation of war or international armed conflict, including belligerent occupation. The governments which have created this law have

acted on the assumption that even urgent military necessity cannot be

allowed to deprive human beings of certain elementary protections.

The overriding purpose of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as reflected

in the negotiating history, was to avoid a repetition of the atrocities

and massive deprivations of human rights which were inflicted upon

civilian populations during the Second World War by the Nazis in

Europe and Russia and by the Japanese militarists in Asia.

The U.S. Government has been the preeminent leader in this branch

of human rights law since President Lincoln proclaimed "Instructions

for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field"

as General Order No. 100 in 1863. This statement of the humanitarian

law, known as Lieber's code because its principal author was Prof.

Francis Lieber of Columbia College, became the basis for the subsequent international conventions on the subject, including the present

Geneva Conventions. Although it was applied in a civil war, it was

widely recognized as being the outstanding codification of the international humanitarian law.
48

II. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GENEVA CIVILIAN'S CONVENTION IN

THE ARAB TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL

In a number of the post-World War II war crimes trials conducted

by the Western Allies, Nazi defendants employed elaborate arguments, including questioning the title to "occupied territory," to avoid

the application of the then effective customary and conventional international humanitarian law as criteria for judging the criminality

or innocence of their conduct. Although these arguments were rejected by the war crimes tribunals, the four Geneva Conventions of

1949 were written in careful language so as to avoid the possibility

of raising these defenses again. The common article 2 of all four

Conventions provides that the Conventions, "Shall apply to all cases

of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise * * *

even if the state of war is not recognized * * * ."

The same article also provides that the Convention shall also apply

to "all" situations "of partial or total occupation of the territory of a

high contracting party * * * ."

The Conventions are thereby applied to the facts of international

conflict, and the lack of a declaration of war is irrelevant. The Conventions also provide no basis for a "just war" theory which would

deprive an alleged aggressor of the benefits of the law while saving

those benefits for an alleged defender. In the same way, the negotiating history makes it clear, since the application of the Conventions is

mandatory, that questions as to de jure titles to territory are not involved and that the Convention must be applied in occupied territory

whatever the claims concerning the de jure status of that territory.

The negotiating history of article 47 of the Civilians Convention

indicates that its purpose is to avoid a repetition of the Nazi and

Japanese militarist practices of World War II whereby the inhabitants of occupied territories were deprived of the protection of the

humanitarian law by the device of purported changes in the local law

including purported annexations of the occupied territory by the occupying power.

Article 47 provides in full:

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.

In spite of these treaty provisions, the Government of Israel, which

participated in the negotiations of the four Geneva Conventions and

was one of the first to ratify them, has not recognized the legal applicability of the Geneva Civilians Convention in occupied territory

nor has it applied the Convention as a matter of fact. Article 158 of

the Convention makes it impossible for a state party to denounce the

Civilians Convention while it is involved in a conflict including a

belligerent occupation by providing that no denunciation of the

Convention shall take effect "until after peace has been concluded"

and until protected persons have been accorded their rights under

the Convention.
40

The Government of Israel, consequently, has had to attempt another

method to avoid the application of the Convention. Dr. Yehuda Z.

Blum provided an attempt in an article entitled, "The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria," 3 Israel Law

Review 279 (1968). I have here a pamphlet reprint of his article which

has been distributed widely in the United States. His statement to this

committee, which I have just heard, is based on this article.

While his government acted entirely consistently with Dr. Blum's

arguments from the beginning of the June 1967 belligerent occupations, it is particularly significant that Mr. Menachem Begin, the present Israel Prime Minister, accepted Dr. Blum's arguments from the

outset.

Dr. Blum's central thesis is that the application of the law of belligerent occupation, in general, and the Civilians Convention, in particular, is based upon the presupposition that the "legitimate sovereign"•to use Dr. Blum's words•of the occupied territory has been

displaced by the occupant. The claim is that Jordan and Egypt were

not legitimate sovereigns in the West Bank of the River Jordan and

in the Gaza Strip, respectively, since they were there as a result of their

alleged acts of aggression.

In this connection, both Mr. Begin and Dr. Blum have frequently

reiterated that only two states have recognized the Jordanian claim

to the title of the West Bank. This is exactly two more states than

have recognized the Israeli claim to the West Bank of the Jordan.

Begin and Blum fail to mention that Jordan annexed the West Bank

subject to Palestinian rights.

Since the requirement of Dr. Blum's presupposition is alleged to be

unfulfilled, the conclusion is then reached that the Government of

Israel is not required to apply the international humanitarian law

for the benefit of the inhabitants of occupied territory.

Even Dr. Blum's arguments do not attempt to explain the failure

of the Government of Israel to apply the Civilians Convention in the

occupied Golan Heights, since it has not yet been alleged that the

Government of Syria acquired this territory now under belligerent

occupation as a result of Syrian aggression. In the same way, it has not

yet claimed that Egypt lacks title to the Sinai. Dr. Blum's additional

objective in criticizing the Jordanian and Egyptian titles is to enhance

the Government of Israel's permanence in the territories and acquisition of the same territories under the claim "the better title" as it has

just been described by him.

Israel's main claim to title, apart from supposed religious arguments

used for political purposes, is the U.N. General Assembly Palestine

Partition Resolution, No. 181 (II) of November 29,1947. The Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel states that this partition

resolution is the ground for the legality of the State of Israel. Under

the terms of this resolution, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are far

beyond the boundaries allocated to the State of Israel. They were expressly allocated to the Palestine Arab State, which certainly gives

such a state•if one exists in the future•a significant claim to title.

A further examination of the Palestine partition resolution indicates

that the territory allocated to Israel•much less than the present

claims or the cease-fire lines which existed prior to June 5,1967•was
50

only allocated on condition that certain duties imposed upon each state

to be established in Palestine were carried out.

Among these legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB is particularly important and provides that each of the states to be set up in

Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions:

Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil,

political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and

publication, education, assembly, and association.

In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may

only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The

refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory

requirements of the Palestine partition resolution•its main claim to

title•puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited

territory allocated to it by the resolution.

It has been mentioned that the partition resolution allocated the

West Bank and the Gaza Strip, along with other territory, to the

Palestine Arab State. It should be added that article 22(4) of the

League of Nations Covenant, certainly the most significant multilateral treaty until the advent of the United Nations Charter, recognized provisionally the independence of all of Palestine. Although a

complete analysis is beyond the scope of the present inquiry, there appears to be persuasive pre-existing legal authority for the territory

comprising a State of Palestine, or, I emphasize, a nondiscriminatory

basis, including the religious nondiscrimination required Palestine

by the partition resolution.

One must conclude that Dr. Blum is unaware of the consequences of

an inquiry concerning title to territory. The inadequacy of his analysis is further emphasized by his statement that, in addition to the

de facto existence of a state, recognition is the basis for the title of a

state and its lawfulness. If so, the State of Israel is in serious trouble

under his analysis because at the present time more states recognize

the Palestine Liberation Organization than recognize the State of

Israel.

The thesis developed by Dr. Blum and acted upon by Mr. Begin is

defective in law, although no one can doubt its effectiveness, thus

far, as a matter of power politics. As a substantive matter it does not

merit serious consideration but, because it has been acted upon by the

Government of Israel, it will now be considered.

First, Dr. Blum uses an obscure method of treaty interpretation

which is not known in international law or, indeed, in any civilized

legal system. It places little or no reliance upon either the text of the

Convention or its negotiating history, which are the accepted methods

of ascertaining meaning including the basic purpose of the

agreement.

Second, it assumes without supporting evidence that the word "territory" in article 2 of the Civilians Convention must be narrowly construed as only including territory over which the displaced government had de jure title or complete formal sovereignty.

Even if the claim that Jordan annexed the West Bank unlawfully should be accepted for purposes of legal argument, this does not

mean that this territory is not "the territory of a high contracting
51

party" within the meaning of article 2. It iswell established that the

word "territory" includes, in addition to de Jure title, a mere de facto

title to the territory. Otherwise, civilians in disputed territory would

be denied the protection of law on the basis of a trivial, and indeed,

a nonexistenttechnicality.

Third, the idea that in order to apply the law of belligerent occupation it is necessary for the belligerent to recognize the displaced

government's title to the territory finds no support in either the text

of the Convention or its negotiating history. In addition, it is contrary

to the well-established customary law based upon state practice. For

example, during the American Civil War, the United States treated

territory which it claimed as sovereign but which the Confederate

States had held as the de facto possessor as being subject to the law

of belligerent occupation up until the conclusion of the Civil War.

This was the widely accepted customary international law, with the

exception of the Nazi and Japanese militarist practices of World

War II, and there is nothing in the Geneva Civilians Convention

which changes it.

Fourth, the legal obstacle of the discredited "just war" concept

which Dr. Blum relies upon must be raised. Dr. Blum and the Government of Israel claim the right to unilaterally categorize the opponent's title to land as being the result of aggression with the effect that

civilians do not receive the protection of the international humanitarian law. If the humanitarian law were to be changed so that its

application was made contingent upon recognition by the belligerent

occupant of the justness of the war aims of its opponent, it is perfectly clear thatthe humanitarian law would be rarely, if ever, applied.

The fifth legal block to the acceptance of Dr. Blum's thesis is that

it frustrates the entire humanitarian purpose of the Civilians Convention. Dr. Blum interprets the Convention as a treaty which is

designed to protect governmental rights and particularly the right

to dispute the de jure title to territory. In contrast, the governments

represented at the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1949, including

the Government of Israel, stated in the preamble to the Civilians

Convention that they met "for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." To

attempt to avoid humanitarian protections for civilians by alleging

the existence of nonspecified governmental rights is to turn the entire

Convention upside down. Since the Convention was written by governments, it is clear that the governmental rights which Dr. Blum

alleges to exist would have been specified in the Convention if the

governments at Geneva had accepted their legal validity.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I have made it quite clear that I am

in full and complete agreement with Dr. Blum with only two exceptions. One exception, sir, relates to the facts and the other to the law.

[Laughter.]

Senator ABOUKEZK. Other than that, you agree with him ?

Mr. MALLISON. Yes, sir, only those two exceptions.

The United Nations, both through the General Assembly and the

Security Council, has taken the position that the Geneva Civilians

Convention must be applied in the territories occupied by Israel since

June 1967. It is particularly important that the U.S. Government has
52

consistently taken this position. For example, Ambassador Charles

Yost stated in the United Nations Security Council on July 1, 1969

that the Government of Israel was required by law to apply the

Geneva Civilians Convention and added that the U.S. Government

has "so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions

since July 1967." I note here 61 Department State Bulletin. 76,

July 28,1969.

On November 11, 1976, while the Ford administration was still in

office and after consultation with the recently elected Carter administration, the United States participated in a Security Council consensus statement concerning the law applicable in the occupied territories. In this unanimous action, the Security Council stated:

Its reafflrmation that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the Arab territories

occupied by Israel since 1967.

Therefore, the occupying power is called upon once again to comply strictly

with the provisions of that Convention and to refrain from any measure that

violates them. In this regard the measures taken by Israel in the occupied

Arab territories that alter their demographic composition or geographical nature

and particularly the establishment of settlements are accordingly strongly deplored. Such measures which have no legal validity and cannot prejudice the

outcome of the search for the establishment of peace constitute an obstacle to

peace. It considers once more that all legislative and administrative measures

and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties

thereon and the transfer of populations which tend to change the legal status of

Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change that status, and urgently calls upon

Israel once more to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of

Jerusalem.

I think the language, Mr. Chairman, in the Security Council resolution concerning altering the "demographic composition" of the territories is very important. As we all remember, the U.S. executive

branch strongly objected to the General Assembly resolution characterizing Zionism as a form of racism. The U.S. Government, by using

different words, appears now, at least since November 1976, to agree

with the General Assembly characterization of Zionism by using the

words "demographic composition" rather than "racism." Of course,

we have the authority of William Shakespeare for the proposition,

Mr. Chairman, that "a rose by any other name is just as sweet."

By this action, the members of the U.N. Security Council were simply

carrying out their obligations under the common article 1 which

appears in each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims. This article provides in full: "The high contracting parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present

Convention in all circumstances." The obligation of the government

and its officers and nationals to adhere to its international law agreements is commonplace. The words "and to ensure respect" were added

at Geneva with the purpose of requiring state parties to the Convention to compel compliance by any state party which might be in violation of the Convention.

This obligation, which is particularly applicable to the United

States and the other great powers, is a continuing one. Among the next

steps which are available to the U.N. Security Council are the application of mandatory economic and military sanctions to the State of

Israel as an international law breaker.
53

HI. EXAMPLES OF PROVISIONS OF THE CIVILIANS CONVENTION WHICH ABE

APPLICABLE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Since other witnesses are stating the facts concerning Government

of Israel practices in the occupied territories, the present analysis is

limited to a brief consideration of some of the main articles of the

Civilians Convention which have been violated, along with a few

explanations based upon the negotiating history.

It is a long convention and I am only going to use a very few examples specifically relevant to the subcommittee's interest.

Article 4 defines civilian protected persons in comprehensive wording as "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever

find themeslves, in a case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a

party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals." This avoids leaving out any possible civilians.

Article 27 of this Convention provides:

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age, and

sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the

party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction

based, in particular, on race, religion, or political opinion.

The purpose of this is to prevent the discrimination of the type that

Dr. Shahak told us about earlier this morning.

Article 33 statesthat:

No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally

committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of

terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

The prohibitions of collective penalties and reprisals are substantive

and are violated by the destruction of houses and villages even if

termed "neighborhood punishment." It is highly significant that the

Civilians Convention flatly prohibits governmental terrorism directed

at civilians. Terrorism, whether conducted by government or nongovernmental entities, causes the most severe deprivation of human

rights including the right of life itself.

Article 49 of the Civilians Convention, as indicated by its negotiating

history, was adopted in order to prevent a repetition of certain practices particularly associated with the Nazis. Article 49(1) provides:

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.

There are two exceptions to the language I have just read about

deportations. Other provisions of article 49 allow "evacuation" of civilians under stringent safeguards if their security requires it or if it is

made necessary by "imperative military reasons." These two situations

are the only exceptions.

Article 49(6) provides:

The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian

population into the territory it occupies.

There are no qualifications or exceptions to this provision. As indicated by the negotiating history, one central purpose is to prevent

creeping annexation by the "creation of facts" in occupied territory,
54

thereby prohibiting the repetition of well-known Nazi practices. This

provision prohibits the Israeli settlements in any of the occupied territories including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the

Sinai.

Senator ABOUREZK. May I interruptthere?

Professor Blum's position was that so long as they did not displace

anybody, they were legal under the Convention. Do you disagree with

that?

Mr. MALLISON. I disagree with that definitely. I understood him

to say, Mr. Chairman, that also was Mrs. Rita Hauser's position. T

would like to take the opportunity to go on record as disagreeing with

her also. Apparently, according to Mrs. Hauser, unless the Government of Israel has done exactly and precisely the same thing that the

Nazis have done; that is, transferring its own civilians into the occupied territory to displace the existing indigenous population and then

march that indigenous population off to concentration camps, where

they all will be murdered, there is no violation of article 49(6).

The matter over-emphasized by Mrs. Hauser was one, but only one

of the purposes of article 49(6). The comprehensive language of

article 49(6) allows no exceptions regardless of the purpose of the

occupying power in transferring its own population into settlements

in occupied territory. There is no legal basis whatsoever upon which

the settlements can be justified.

IV. THE INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO OIL RESOURCES IN OCCUPIED

TERRITORY THE HAGUE REGULATIONS

The international humanitarian law concerning belligerent occupation also applies to natural resources. As an example, a brief summary of its application to oil resources is included here. Articles 23 (g),

46, 52, 53, and 55 of the Hague Regulations which are part of the

Hague Convention IV of 1907 (1910) 36 Stat. 2277, T.S. No. 539•

specify the limitations on the occupying power's rights over property

in occupied territory. These provisions not only appear in a treaty

of the United States but are now widely regarded as being a part of

binding customary international law, including binding those States

that were not members of the world community in 1907. They were so

treated bv the Nuremburg tribunals following the Second World War.

The Hague Regulations enunciate two basic legal principles concerning the protection of property in occupied territory.

These principles are that private property may not be taken without

compensation and that property interests may not be exploited to

enrich the occupying state, as by using oil from the occupied territory

to fulfill the needs of the occupant's home economy. As interpreted by

various municipal and international courts, the Hague Regulations

do not permit Israel to take oil from producing wells without compensation and then exploit the oil commercially including using it for its

own domestic purposes. This prohibited action is precisely what the

Government of Israel has done with oil from the Sinai. Atthe most, the

law of the Hague Regulations only permits that crude oil taken in the

occupied territory be used for the military purposes of the occupant

within the occupied territory. It is also clear under existing law that
Israel has no rightto prospect for oil and to establish oil wells any place

in the occupied territories. The belligerent occupant may only act as

a "usufructary" in relation to natural resources including oil, and this

requires it to conserve the oil and make a full accounting for it to the

lawful governmental and private owners of the oil resources as soon

asthe belligerent occupation is terminated.

A definitive study on this subject which concludes that the State of

Israel has violated the applicable international law is: Edward K.

Cummings, "Oil Resources in Occupied Arab Territories Under the

Law of Belligerent Occupation," 9 Journal of International Law and

Economics of George Washington University 533 (1974).

V. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT OF

THE HUMANITARIAN LAW

I urge this subcommittee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the

Senate to take all necessary steps to maintain the leadership of the

U.S. Government in human rights law concerning international armed

conflicts and belligerent occupations.

The United States should more adequately honor its treaty obligation "to insure respect for" the Civilians Convention in all circumstances. The Civilians Convention must be enforced fully and without

discrimination in order to make its protection of human rights

meaningful.

A most effective sanction, within the constitutional authority of the

Senate and the Congress, would be to withhold military and economic

assistance from any government which is in flagrant and persistent

violation of the Geneva Civilians Convention for the protection of

war victims.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ABOTJREZK. Thank you very much, Professor Mallison, for

a very good exposition of the existing international law on this

question.

Your statement has been exceedingly thorough and does not leave

me very many questions to ask. You have responded virtually in full to

the pronouncements by the previous witness, Professor Blum.

Other than the questions that I asked during the course of your testimony, I have no questions unless you have something else that you

would like to say.

Mr. MALLISON. Mr. Chairman, Professor Blum has referred to aggression in his presentation. I would like to point out that the new Israeli prime minister, Mr. Begin, introduced massive terror into the

Palestine-Israel conflict in the 1940's. Along with his fellow Europeans in the Irgun, he was responsible for a continuous series of terrorists attacks, many of which are described with pride by Mr. Begin

in his book entitled "The Revolt: Story of the Irgun." Since 1948, Mr.

Begin has advised the Government of Israel on many of its acts of

governmental terror against Palestinians. This is the same Mr. Begin

who has recently been a welcome visitor of the U.S. Government.

While Mr. Begin was in the United States, a distinguished Palestinian lawyer and scholar, Mr. Sabri Jiryis, who advocates peaceful

solutions to the Middle East conflict, was denied a visa to come to this
56

country. I cannot help wondering, Mr. Chairman, if our Government

is really aware that it is sending a message of encouragement to all

terrorists in the world who aspire to emulate Mr. Begin, while discouraging moderates, whether Palestinians of Israelis, who are committed to peaceful methods.

Senator ABOUREZK. With that, I would like to once again express my

thanks for a scholarly and thorough study of this question and for

your presentation to the committee.

Without objection, the two attachments to your written statement

will be included in the record atthis point.

[The attachments follow:]
57

DOCUISNEMS.

WSEL

.^HNfcj^X\\C

GJ&?

HTH» .intern xno.may.rT* nu

mra rrntm T-i

n>yji-rty-i>y

' on "» *•t' TUraH Muck w. >ij] i

NO NEED TO REGISTER

Hill privr detail! of I

it«hl cusp* In ucbun. ;

•r o*i«i]. r.r trwuporUtion.

, sns

*P1 - 1*0 •*J

M

*

l

*"a,7b *l»l|RliB«tt Two full boftfaa t>T waVttt" i»*»-l cmrlnr- atron

W»i *«B «•.: fkrtw*« dtip«>l two; innl aumry

O*o«n of Imimi ud mmicil instrumental tn ut'ii lo brlnf Una,

Tb* Xirth ha* Iht MflnlMoe ud inMetlon o! Iht l.D.r

HAPPY PSB8AH

March HmdqutMfn Cmh Emunim

A Survey of

Israeli

Settlements

11

Ad in Jerusalem Post, April 14, 1976

reprinted from MERIP #60

TRUTHS ABOUTSETTLEMENT

The following document is translated from the Jerusalem

Anbic deify Al-Qudi of June 5, 1977. Addition* details here

been added-in brackets and italics-based on research done by

Ann Lesch, nho we kindly thank tor her permission to print

this previously unpublished research. Information added by

MERIP is in brackets designated by "Eds." Abdullah Elsuyadi

translated the A! duds article for MERIP.

The struggle for possession of land has been a primary aspect

of the Palestinian problem for the Zionist movement since its

inception. In the first Zionist conference held in 1897 Professor [Hermann-Eds.l Zvi Schapira suggested the creation of a

special national fund for the possession of land In Palestine.'

•Tne Ml National Fund (Karen ATayemar L'Ykmn ttu actually

JfS" '" »»1 lor th. -F>rs.reat£' of lin.I In•.!.,,".Ir"te.

pan two oeo.<ta, tn. JNF-, .ctlvltl.a nan l«^Tra,««»?
58

This suggestion emphasized the prohibition on selling any piece

of land belonging to this fund to individuals, even Jews. Seven

years after the convening of the first Zionist conference in

1904, the Zionist philosopher Ussishkin put the actual strategy

of possessing the land as follows: In order to establish sectarianindependent life for Jews or, for clarity of expression, a Jewish

state on the land of Israel, it is imperative that all the land of

Israel, or at least the majority of it, should be in the possession

of the Jewish people. Without the right to possess the land it

cannot be "the land of Israel" irrespective of the proportion of

the Jewish population in it.

Ussishkin based his strategy for possessing the land on

three points:

1. Seizure of land by war

2. Forcible purchases through the ruling authority

(expropriation}

3. Voluntary purchases from its owners.

Upon the consequences of the June war of 1967, the military authority in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula

and the Golan Heights formed the so-called Israel Land Authority [I LA•Eds.] to supervise all matters connected with

land problems and construction in these territories. Offices

were opened for I LA in the major cities in the occupied territories and employees of ILA were appointed to coordinate

with the military authority.

The Israel Land Authority began its work with survey

operations In the occupied territories. These surveys had multiple objectives: ascertaining the area of state-owned territory,

the area which the Jordanian Army controlled, and the area of

land owned by absentees. The I LA drew up a statistical report

about its work for the year 1968-69. It was obvious from this

report that among the tasks delegated to the ILA were preparations for Jewish colonial settlement in the occupied Arab

territories.

ANNUAL REPORT

The following is an abstract of the ILA yearly reports ii i the

West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula.

Annual Report 1970-71: West Bank-earmarking 42,650

dunums for the purpose of colonial settlement.

Annual Report 1971-72: West Bank -earmarking 8,850 dunums

for the purpose of colonial settlement. The Gaza Strip and

northern Sinai•24,000 dunums for colonial settlement.

Annual Report 1972-73: Gaza Strip and northern Sinai•3,000

dunums for the improvement of three Jewish settlements.

Annual Report 1973-74: West Bank-earmarking 8,807 dunums

for colonial settlement.

Annual Report 1974-75: West Bank-earmarking 10,722

dunums for colonial settlement. Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula

•expropriation of 13.400 dunums in the environs of Rafah for

colonial settlement.

Annual Report 1975-76: West Bank-earmarking 1,653 dunums

for colonial settlement. Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula-10,820

dunums (for colonial settlement•Eds.]

COLONIAL SETTLEMENT IN THE

GOLAN HEIGHTS

The Golan Heights is approximately 1,400 square kilometers,

or 1.400,000 dunums; if the occupied areas in Mount Hermon

and Ghoar Al-Hameh are included the total area is 1,190 square

GOLAN HEIGHTS

I Nm Atlv

2Snlr

3 Har 0<J«n

4 El Rom

5 Mwom Golan

« Eln 2 Ivan

7 Katwln (Industrial canler)

a KMM

9 Anram

10 Yonatan

II Stta'al

12 Gam la

13 Ramot

14 Markaz Hfsfln

15 Ramat Maptilmln

1C Ami EKafi

17Nov

IB Gaahur

19 Ell Al

20 CM vat Vo'av

21 Marku Bnal YanuOa

22 Na'ot Golan

24 Kfar Harm

25 Mavo Mamma

Source; Ann Laach

International borders

Armistice Lines 11949)

C

Buffer zone {after Israel-Syria

Disengagement Agreement,

May 1974).
59

kilometers. Geographically the Golan Heights can be divided

into three sectors: north abutting Mount Hermon, central, and

southern Heights overlooking Lake Tiberias [Sea of Galilee

-Eds.I

There are 10,000 Arab peasants living in the Golan Heights

in four villages: Majdal-Shams, Baakata, Massadah and Ain

Keena. Most of the 10,000 are Druse; before the Israeli occupation about 130JXX) Syrians lived in Golan.

The number of settlements existing and planned for in the

near future is 24: six in the north, four in the central sector,

and 14 in the southern pan of the Golan Heights. The large

concentration of settlements in the south is due to the fertility

of the land and the availability of water. Up to 1974 Israel

exploited 50,000 dunums for agricultural settlement and it

plans to exploit an additional 140,000 dunums for agricultural

objectives and 400,000 dunums as natural grazing area for the

settlers' flocks. There are 3,500 Jewish settlers in the Golan

Heights living in 1,200 housing units secured against light

weapons. The significance of these settlements is due to the

strategic position of the Heights. This has been repeatedly

proven during the October 1973 war when Israel let the Egyptians advance in Sinai but did not tolerate the penetration of

the Syrian forces in the Golan Heights because it threatens

major Israeli cities.

The following is an abstract of the settlements which were

established in the Golan Heights.

1. El-Ad: erected in 1966 in southern Golan on the site of

the Arab village of el-AI, and originally called by that name.

In 1973 this settlement was expanded and its name changed to

El-Ad. The area of this settlement is 4,500 dunums.

2. El-Rom: erected in 1971 on the KuneitTgrMassadah

road, on the site of the Arab village of Ain Hawar, in the northern sector. The area of cultivated land is 4,600 dunums, and

recently a small fishery reservoir was established on another

400 dunums. This [kibbutz*] isaffiliated with the Labor Party.

3. Afik: this was the first settlement established in the

Golan Heights after the June 1967 war, under the name of

Nahal Golan, on the site of the Arab village of Frek. In January 1968 it was enlarged and renamed Afik. The area of the

settlement is 4,500 dunums, and it is affiliated with the Labor

Party.

4. Ein Zivan: established on the site of the Arab village of

Ain Za'yion on the road to Kuneitra. The total land area is

5,000 dunums. This kibbutz cultivates fruit orchards.

5. Ani'am: established in 1973, it is an industrial settlement for Jews from the US. It is located ciose to the Arab village of Al-Rumanah.

6. Keshet: this settlement was relocated after the 1974

disengagement agreement with Syria and is now a military

camp on the Gotan Heights. The setders perform agricultural

work and administrative tasks for the military.

7. Ramot: founded in 1969 and enlarged in 1974, this

settlement is near the Arab village of Kufr A'Kab. Its area is

4,000 dunums.

8. Ramat Magshimin; erected in 1968 and expanded in

1972, the area of this settlement is 4,500 dunums. It [is a

I, primarily agricultural, clvll-

'HaPor! htiMurahi was founded between the two world wars ai a raltgtoui labor mowament. In 19S6 it merged with Mlzrahl, a rallglout Zlonht mowmtni. to form tha conaarvatlve National Rallgloui party, a

vociferous proponent of Jawtth tattlamant throughout "Errti iuMi"

within tha prasant Israeli government coalition.

religious kibbutz] belonging to the haPoel haMizrahi movement."

9. Snir: founded near Tel Al-Hamrah after it was cleared

of mines in 1967, this settlement is 2,000 dunums of grazing

area for the settlers' animals and an additional 2,000 dunums

for the settlement itself.

10. Givat Yo'av: established in 1968 in the houses of the

Arab village of Salcufia in the southern part of the Golan

Heights. This settlement was enlarged in 1972 and the present

area is 4,500 dunums.

11. Nahal* Geshur: founded in 1968 and relocated to its

present site after the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria.

12. Kafr Genat: established in 1971 near the Arab village

of Sa*kufia, east of Lake Tiberias, this settlement belongs to

the haPoel haMizrahi movement.

13. Kfar Haruv: erected on the site of a Syrian military

camp, overlooking Lake Tiberias. This settlement was enlarged

in 1974 and has an area of 2,800 dunums.

14. Mevo Hanna: established in 1968 on the site of the

Arab village of Hamah near a Syrian position. This settlement

has an area of 4,500 dunums.

15. Merom Golan: created in 1967 on the site of a Syrian

military camp south of Kuneitra, and enlarged in 1972. This

settlement has an area of 4,500 dunums and belongs to the

haKibbutz haM'uhad movement.* The approximately 350kibbutz members las of spring 1975} raise potatoes, apples, tulips

and cattle.

16. Bnei Yehuda Center: this settlement provides services

to the settlements in the southern Golan Heights. It was founded

in 1972 and has industries for the Air Force.

17. Ne'ot Golan: founded on the site of the Arab village of

Fik in 1968, this settlement has an area of 4.500 dunums and

belongs to the Independent Liberal Party.

18. Nov: established on the site of the Arab village of

Maz'Ra'at Noob in 1973, this settlement has an area of 4,000

dunums.

19. Neve Ativ: founded on the site of the Arab village of

Jofta Az-Ziet in 1968 under the name of Ramat Shalom, this

settlement was expanded in 1971 and belongs to the Independent Liberal Party. It includes a ski resort on the top of Mount

Hermon. It was abandoned during the October 1973 war, but

has expanded Quickly since the summer of 1974, including a

ski-station, snow equipment and a sports club. Development

funds come from the World Zionist Organization, the Israeli

Tourism Ministry and the Government Tourist Company; 70%

of the moshav's* income comes from tourism andskiing.

20. Har Odem: founded in 1975 near the Druze village of

Bak'Ata, this settlement was taken over by the Independent

Liberal Party in 1976. Some of the settlers work in the electronics industry and others in tourist-related jobs.

21. Yonatan: established in 1975 near the Arab village of

•HoKtbbuU tuitfuhod or Unltad Kibbutz movement rounded Ahdut

'Ait)da (United Zloniit Labor) party In 19*4, which merged with

HoShomtr HaTzabr to form tha Mapam (Labor) party In 1948. HaKibbutt haM sifted't original purpose wn to "utilize . . , collective . . .

settlement for lerge-acale absorption of workers": It is still en Influential

proponent of settlements within tha Labor Party. (Encyclopedia of Zlonim a 1/araeJ)

^•J^*" .". * "=?<*•«*'*• •flflctiltural tattlamant cased on private

SMaTZMcUr*

th

'

JNF* *nd Mm m

"

k

'

tln« ",d "»
60

Kukah, in the southern sector of the Golan.

[22. Missing from original text-Eds.l

23 Katzrin: a settlement center in the central region of the

Benat YaVoub bridge-Kuneitra road. It is expected that this

settlement will accommodate 20.000 Israelis and will have an

industrial area. . ,

24 Sha'al: a civilian settlement founded in 1976 belonging

to the Herut Party." Vegetable fields and a factory are being

established.

COLONIAL SETTLEMENT IN THE WEST BANK

From 1967 to the present Israel has been establishing settlements along three lines in the West Bank and the Jordan valley.

The first line is on the Jordan valley's eastern border (along

the Jordan Riverl to the Dead Sea. The objective of this line is

the creation of civilian settlements to complement the military

positions and settlements which are scattered on that front.

The second line is located on the eastern plains of the Nablus

mountain range. The third line is located on the borders of the

West Bank and Israel. This line separates the Arab villages in

the northern West Bank from the Arab villages in the Triangle

region lof 1948 Israel-Eds.). Bv 1976, 16 agricultural settlements had been created and linked by highways in the Jordan

valley.

JERUSALEM

Israel ranks the Judaization of Jerusalem at the top of its settle-

•Trie pertv oi Prime Minister Begin.

TheCOHEN-RESNICK

WOMEN'S HEBREW INSTITUTE

OEOICATED TO THE EDUCATION

Ot= TH£ 3EW1SH WOMAN BV

REBAANOARNOLD COHEN

THALIA AND MARTIN RESNICK

BALTIMORE MARYLAND USA

ment priorities. Israel is in a race with time: it know* that the

Arab character of Jerusalem is a key factor in the course of a

total settlement [of the Middle East situation-Eds.]. Therefore, Israel is attempting TO create facts in Jerusalem. Israel

legislated an assortment ef laws and regulations, such as the

law to increase the Jewish population of Jerusalem, in addition

to establishing residential areas surrounding the city. This was

done to close off Arab access to Jewish neighborhoods. Israel

also created nearby settlements in the West Bank to be the

backbone for Jewish residential areas which surround Jerusalem.

For example, the settlement of Kafr Etzion is the backbone

for the residential neighborhood south of Jerusalem near Bethlehem and Beit Jala, the residential neighborhood of Talpiot,

and Har Gila settlement near Beit Jala, as well as housing units

planned for the Mount Ar-Ras (Jebel Ar-Ras) region.

The area of Al-Khan Al-Ahmer (Maale haAdumim) on the

Jerusalem-Jericho road, is considered the backbone for the

established residential neighborhoods east of Jerusalem north

of Jebel Al-Tur. This settlement is called Har HaTzofim [Mount

Scopus-Eds.] and is linked to the Hebrew University and

Hadassah Hospital.

Neve Yaacov and Nebi Samuel [Ramot settlement] and

the designated settlement on the site of the Arab village of

Jena', northeast of Jerusalem, are considered the backbone for

the newly-built residential areas, French Hill and Ramat

Eshkol, north of Jerusalem. Israel is also planning to exploit

1,100 dunums from the village of A'nata for the establishment

of an industrial complex capable of accommodating factories

for both parts of Jerusalem.

["UU '^^aml'et-'

» 'Saaaw ^Ln L^a^tfTr^^^*^ •

•-':

The Judaization

of Jerusalem

DING
61

HEBRON SETTLERS

KmiftT RfcBR . MX1H rt'tn

f f <• i| Wt

Top left; sign in Hebron

Top right: fortress-like buildings in Kiryat Arba

Botton left: Kiryat Arba settlers in 1970

Bottom right: Kiryat Arba dominates expropriated

Palestinian land.

WEST BANK

1. Kafr Etzion: established in (September) 1967 on the

remnants of a village eliminated on May 13, 1948. It is one of

four religious settlements on the Jerusalem-Hebron road, has

an area of 1,000 dunums and belongs to the haPoel haMizrahi

movement. 7?t« was the first settlement on the West Bank;

from 1948 to 1967 it was the site of a Jordan army camp. Its

economic base is a factory and turkey run. In spring 1975 the

population was 200.

2. Alon Shvot: established in 1970 in the area of Kafr

Etzion near Kharbat Zakaria. It has an area of 500 dunums

and another 500 dunums are being prepared for 200 housing

units. Like Kafr Etzion it is a religious kibbutz; in the spring of

1976 its population was approximately 300.

3. Elazar: created in [October] 1975 in the Kafr Etzion

region for the establishment of light industries. It is a religious

moshav with a chemical laboratory andaprojected toy factory.

In spring 1976 there were 90 residents; its land includes 350

dunums expropriated in 1973 from the Arab village of Hadar.

-~. 4. Rosh Tzurim: the fourth settlement in the area of Kafr

) Euion, founded in [July] 1969. It has an area of 800 dunums.

It is a religious kibbutz of about 150 residents, and its economic base is a turkey run.

5. Kiryat Arba: founded [illegally] in [April] 1968 by

four Jewish families in two buildings near the building of the

military governor for the Hebron area. This settlement has an

area of 3,000 dunums and a population of 1,400 in 200 housing units. Its economy depends on industry and tourism. It

was legalized in 1970.

6. Elon Moreh (Kaddum): Israelis [of the Gush Emunim

movement•Eds.) tried several times to settle in a vacated train

station near Sabastia, but the government prevented them. On

May 9, 1976 a ministerial ruling permitted them to relocate at

an army camp near the Arab village of Kafr Kaddum where a

settlement is being established especially for them. [This settlement was legalized by Prime Minister Begin on July 26

1977-Eds.]

7. Argaman: established in [November] 1968 in the

northern region of the Jordan valley near the Arab village of

Marj e-Naj'a. It became a civilian [moshav] in [May] 1971,

with an area of 4,500 dunums, linked to the Herut party. Its

population of approximately 90 grows fruit and vegetables and

runs a restaurant.

8. Baka'ot: founded in [July] 1972 in the Jordan valley.

It belongs to the Agricultural Union [thud Haklai*] and has

an area of 1,800 dunums with an additional 300 dunums for

the cultivation of citrus fruits [and vegetables]. This moshav

also raises poultry.

9. Giigal: founded in [January] 1970 [as a nahal) near

the village of al-Awja, and changed to a civilian settlement in

•Ihud Haklai or Agricultural Union It a "nonpolitical organization of

farmers working tfialr own family farmi. (which | assists Its members In

establishing and consolidating their farmitaad* and halpi organlz* economic and social Ufa In mlddra-clau agricultural settlements.•• (Encyclopedia of Zionism and Itrael)

20-488 O - 78 - 5
62

[May] 1973 with a land area of 1,400 dunums. They grow

vegetables and citrus fruits.

10. Gitit: established in [August] 1972 [asanahat] on the

plaint of the eastern Nablus mountain range. In (December]

1976 it was enlarged and became a civilian settlement with an

area of 1,500 dunums. This moshav belongs to the Herutparty; its economic bate is the cultivation of vegetables and field

crops. Its land was expropriated from the Arab village of

Akraba from which 5.000 dunums was closed offend sprayed

with defoliants in early 1972,

11. Har Gila: founded in 1968 in an army camp near the

Arab village of Beit Jala. It was later expanded and more buildings added; it belongs to the Nature Conservation organization.

The Israeli government is now planning to again expand this

settlement to accommodate 200 families, making it a link

between Jerusalem, Kafr Etzion and the Bethlehem-Beit Jala

highway junction.

12. Hamra: created in [May] 1971, 25 kilometers east of

Nablus on the Damiya bridge road, la area is 3,500 dunums.

This moshav has about 90 residents who raise vegetables, citrus,

flowers, poultry and /law a metal workshop; and are members

of Ihud Haklai. Its land was taken from the Arab village of Bab

e-Nakb.

13. Mavo Huron: founded near the Arab village of Beit

Nuba in 1969 and expanded in 1974. This settlement is agricultural, particularly the cultivation of olives, with an area of

2,700 dunums. It is a religious moshav of about 50 residents.

14. Mivshom: presently under construction in the Jordan

valley; the settlers are temporarily housed in Nahal Kalian camp.

15. Mehoia: established in the Jordan valley [as a nahal]

in [February) 1968, and expanded and converted to a civilian

settlement in [November] 1969. It has an area of 3,000

dunums and is linked to the haPoel haMizrahi movement. The

90 or so settlers raise field crops, grapefruit, turkeys and have

a metal factory. Its land was taken from the Arab villages of

Bardala and Tel ei-Beida. both of whose water supply is severely depleted by Mehola s wells.

16. Maale haAdumim: founded in 1975 near the Arab village of al-Khan al-Ahmar, 15 kilometers east of Jerusalem. A

military-industrial base was established on the 400 dunum

settlement. The original settlers (numbering about 60) were

from the Gush Emunim movement, but plans for this industrial

area include housing for 2,500 Jewish workers, in 1972 the

Israel Defense Force closed off 70.000 dunums of land in this

area and more expropriations followed In mid-1975 from the

land of the Arab villages of Abu Dis. Azariya and Issewiya.

17. Maale Ephraim: presently under construction (as a

regional center] in the Jordan valley. The settlement was

originally founded in July 1972by Phatza 'el settlers who stayed

until mid-1957. A temporary maintenance group came in 1976

to continue construction.

18. Mitzpe Shalom: founded in [December] 1970, five

kilometers from the Dead Sea. with an area of 200 dunums.

This nahal cultivates date palms and vegetables and runs a

garage.

19. Massuah: established [as a nahal] several kilometers off

the highway junction of Damiah bridge -Nablus-A! Jiftlik in the

Jordan valley. It was expanded and converted into a civilian

[kibbutz] in [May] 1974;itsareais4,000dunumswithanother

600 dunums added recently. Its 80settlers, affiliated with the

Independent Liberal party, raise vegetables and fish.

20. Mekhora: established in 1972 on the eastern plains of

the Nablus mountain range on an area of 1,500 dunums. In

July 1976 this nahal was converted to a civilian moshav, part

of Ihud Haklai, which raises vegetables and fruit. Its land was

expropriated from the Arab villages of Bab e-Nakb, Belt Dajan

and Beit Furik.

21. Na'aran: founded in [December] 1970, 10 kilometers

north of Ariahah, on an area of 100 dunums. This nahal wm

converted to a civilian kibbutz in October 1976 and It now

goes by the name of Yitav. It grows vegetables and field crops;

its land was expropriated from the Arab villagesofAwja Fawka '

and Aw/a Tahta.

22. Netiv Hagdud: presently under construction in the

Jordan valley.

23. Ofra: founded [illegally] in [May! 1975 in [a former

Jordanian] army camp northeast of Ain Yabrud on 250

dunums [of this village's land]. This settlement belongs to the

Gush Emunim movement [and had about 100 people in the

spring of 1976]. [It was legalized by Prime Minister Begin on

July 26, 1977-Eds.J

24. Phatza'el: established in the Jordan valley in iDecem

bar] 1970 and expanded in 1975. Its area is 3,000 dunums

and belongs to the settlements movement. The members of

this moshav, who lived at Maale Ephraim until April 1975,

grow winter vegetables for export. There are about 40 families

in residence. •

26. Kalia (Aimog): created in [February] 1968 [asanahat]

and enlarged and converted into a civilian (kibbutz] in 1974,

located on the road northwest of the Dead Sea. The settlers

raise vegetables, trees, turkeys, vineyards, and fish.

26. Efrat: the I LA is preparing a study for the establishment of the Efrat Settlement Center in the area of Bethlehem.

SETTLEMENTS IN SINAI AND GAZA STRIP

SINAI

Despite the fact that it is an uninhabited desert and has obvious

need for a natural [water- -Eds.] source, Israel appears determined to seize one-third of the Sinai's 24 thousand square

miles, Israel's desire to retain this pan of the Sinai is both

strategic and economic, as petroleum is found near its shores.

Israel has established a number of settlements, military installations and other big projects which form an arc stretching

from the port of Rafah in the central region to the village of

Tur on the Gulf of Suez. This arc resembles a national frontier.

There are 17 Israeli settlements at the northern end of the

arc, overlooked by Yamit. the settlement center. Yamit has

inhabitants who travel to Israel for work. The economic bases

of the Sinai settlements are agriculture, tourism, and military

industries. In 1976 a plan was approved for the development

of the southern region. The Zionist Histadrut foundation presented a plan to the government for the creation of 110 settlements between Yamit and Beersheva.

The following is an abstract of the settlements in the Sinai.

1. Ofira: founded in southern Sinai near Sharm el-Sheikh

in 1967 under the name Sharm al-Sheikh Center. In 1970

work began on the construction of a tourist center. There are

now three tourist hotels, several restaurants and a plan to settle

1,000 families by the end of 1977.

2. Di-Zahav: established in 1971 near the Arab village of

Al-Dhahab on the eastern coast of the Sinai. This settlement
63

THE WEST BANK

K*T- Armistice Lines < 1949)

International boundaries

Alton ("limit of settlement" I Road .

9 » «9 km

Source: Ann L«*Ch

a

la Nahal MalklShua

1 Mahola

2 Nahal Ho'i

3 Baka'ot

4 Himri

5 Nahal Makhora

6 A r ga man

7 Airfield

S Massuah

9 tiltit

0 Ma'ala Ephrlam

' PhatttW

2 Tomer

13 Uligal

14 Natlv Hagdud

15 Mlvtom

II Mahal Na'aran (or Yltav)

17 Kocrtav Ha'Shahar

18 Kalla

19 Ma'ala Ha'Adumim

20 Ofar

21 Balial (military govarnmant MQ)

22 Kaddum

23 Mayo Huron

24 Canada Park

25 Mlttpa Shalam

26 Takoari

27 Etazar

28 Rofh Tiurlm

29 Alon Shvot

30 Kfar f tzlon

31 Klryat ArOa

32 Atarot

33 Naya Ya'akov

34 Rimot

35 Anatot (or Anata)

36 Ramat Eshkol

37 I ranch Hill

38 Olio

39 East Taiplot

40 Jawtoh Quartar In JarUS.|«m old City

has a strategic importance: it it located on the highway junction between Sharm al-Sheikh (to the south), St. Catherine

Monastery (to the west) and Eilat (to the north). It it affiliated

with the Independent Liberal Party.

3. Dikla: created in [May] 1969 on the plains of Rafah

and enlarged and converted into a civilian settlement in 1971.

This settlement is also strategically located between the Egyptian and Palestinian frontier, at the entrance of the Sinai from

the Gaza Strip near Tel al-Sheikh Zuwald. Its area is 2,500

dunums and it is affiliated with the Herut Party.

4. Yamit: founded on the plaint of Rafah in 1973 and

expanded in 1975. It is a big settlement center with a population of 850 [largely army families and Russian and US immigrants] , providing services to the other settlements in the area.

There are 250 housing units and the government is preparing

2,000 additional housing units. It is considered one of the

tourist attractions in the area. Plans for Yamit incfudi a population of 250000, an international airport, railway station,

commercial port, and electronic based industries. Over 30000

beduins formerly lived in the ana, but were removed for

"security reasons."

5. Av-Shalom: a settlement center founded on the plains

of Rafah in 1972 and later enlarged to accommodate Soviet

Jews.

6. Neviot: established to the west of the Arab village of

Nadibah on the Eilat-Sharm al-Sheikh road in 1971 and expanded in 1972. Its area is 2,500 dunums and it is an agriculturaltourist center linked to the settlements movement.

7. Nahal Harofit: founded in 1975 near al-Arish on the

site of an Arab well. It belongs to the Bitar movement of the

Herut Party. Keren Kayemet is now preparing to enlarge the

setttement.

8. Nahal Yam: founded in [October] 1967 between alArish and Kantara. In 1973 it was converted into a civilian

settlement, belonging to the Agriculture Union, [and supported

by the Jewish Agency].

9. Nahal Sinai: established in 1967, eight kilometers

south of al-Arish on land the Egyptian government was planning for agricultural development. It was settled in 1972 by

the Herut Bitar movement on an area of 150 dunums. The 50

or so settlers cultivate olive and citrus groves which had been

planted by the Egyptian government.

[10. Missing from original text-Eds.]

11. Netiv Ha'asarah: created in 1973 with seven agricultural

buildings on 200 dunums for mango cultivation.

12. Sadot: established in 1971 on 1,500 dunums of the

Rafah plains. As of spring 1975, 52 families, almost all native

born Israelis, lived in this moshav. The Jewish Agency selects

all new members and it, along with the JNF, invests 250000

Israeli liras (about $25000) per family for such things as

houses, agricultural equipment, roads. They raise vegetables

flowers, mangoes and turkeys.

13. Shalhevet: founded on the west coast of the Sinai in

1971 on the site of the Egyptian village of Abu-Rudeis, which

was also the original name of the settlement. It was linked to

the Israel Petroleum Company (Netive-Neft) and was returned

to Egypt on December 1, 1975 as part of the second Sinai disengagement agreement.

14. Ugda: [a moshav] established in 1975on2,400dunums

on the Rafah plains.

There are preparations for the establishment of the following settlements on the Rafah plains: Succoth, Nir, Avra-
64

hem, Talme-Yousef, David and Houlit. tThe cornerstone of

Talme-Yousef was laid on July 27, 1977. The settlers are

recent immigrants from South Africa; according to the JkMH

Telegraphic Agency (July 29, 1977) each family will invest

$15,000 to establish orchards for sub-tropical fruits and

sunflowers-Eds.)

GAZA STRIP

15. Kfar Darom: founded in Wadi Salka in [December]

1970 and converted into a civilian settlement in 1975. It has

an area of 400 dunums and is linked to the haPoel haMizrahi

movement.

16. Nahal Morag: established in (November] 1972between

Khan Younis and Rafah near Tel Musbah. It is affiliated with

the Labor Party.

17. Nahal Netzarim: founded in [November] 1972 between

Gaza and Deir Al-Balah, near Tel al-A'gul and Al-Nasrtet camps.

Its area is 4,000 dunums. It is affiliated with the Herut Party.

18. Nahal Ai-Kativ: founded under the name Nahal Gadish

in [May] 1973, between Deir Al-Balah and Khan Younis. Its

area is 150 dunums and it is linked with the Mapam Party.

Source! (or AI Quits vlicit

Aharon Bier. Development and Settlement, Jiruudm, 1976; Yaarly

Raport Of I LA. 1968. 1976; Time magailna, Marcn 1977; B*rucn Kimmarling, Struggle Otttr the Land*. Haoraw Unlvarttty; Pubiieat lorn and

maps or tha Gowarnmant Inlofmatlon Offlca, Jaruaalam.

rp**

•**•»

n \_J

EK? t/'*^^

aW;

Sourcai Ann Lasch

Top: constructing Yamit

Middle: lookout at Sinai border

settlement

Bottom: Israelis withdrawing

from Abu Rudels
05

/HERIP RERDRTS

Middle East Research & Information Project

P.O.Box 3122 • Columbia Heights Station • Washington, D.C. 20010
66

DOCUNNEMS.

Israeli

Settlement

Policy

On July 26, 1977, Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin dec/end "legat" three new settlements on the occupied Palestinian West Bank: Kaddum, Ma'a/a Ha'Adumim. and Ofar. Although this act. coming just after Begin's US visit, has bean

criticized by the US administration, it is only the most recant

manifestation of a consistent Israeli policy of building settlements in the territory occupied in 1967. The following documents taken from the Israeli media outline the stated policy

and some of the specific settlement plans of both the former

Labor government and the new Likud government in Israel.

la Nahal Malkl Shut

1 Mahola

2 Nahal Ho'i

3 Baka'ot

5 Nahal Makhora

6 Argaman

7 Alrflald

• Maituah

t Oltll

10 Ma'Hi Ephrlam

11 Phatza*l

13CMigal

14 NatlvHagdud

19 Mlvtom

16 Nahal Na'aran (or Yitav)

17 Kochav Hi'Snahar

IB Kill.

19 Ma*ala Ha'Adumlm

20 Otar

21 Baltal (military govammant hudquirttn)

22 Kaddum

23 Mavo Moron

24 Canada Park

29 MltzpaShalam

26 Takoah

27 Elazar

26 Roth Tturlm

29 Alan Snvot

30 Klar tutor.

31 KlryatArba

32 Atarot

13 Nava Va'akov

jA Ramot

"35 Anitot (01 Anata)

36 Ramat Ethkol

37 F ranch Hill

38 Olio

39 Ea« Talptot

40 Jawiifi Quartw In Jar UMlam Old City

MEDITERRANEAN

SEA

Kty: Armistice Line* (1949) - - Interrtational boundaries

Alton ["limit of settlement") Road •• • .
67

CABINET HEARS STATISTICS ON JEWISH

SETTLEMENTS

The intention to establish an urban settlement in the Gush

k Ezion area was reported by the director general of the Zionist

J Organization's settlement division, Yehiel Admoni, at this

week's cabinet session.

He delivered an inclusive review about the settlement

issue, in which he noted that there are four settlements in

Gush Ezion, with an urban settlement intended for Teqoa,

which is now a military foothold (that was established about

a year ago and is manned by Nahal men). Admoni reported

that the agricultural settlements in Gush Ezion base themselves on land which in the main ties in areas bordering on

the green line [1948 border]. The settlement division director general said in his review there was a plan to establish

two settlements in the Bet Horon area and about five settlements in the Givan area-northwest of Jerusalem.

Since the six day war, Admoni said, 94 settlements had

been established, including 64 beyond the green line-in the

Golan 21 settlements had been established along with four

military footholds. The Jordan Valley saw the establishment

of 17 settlements, out of which 13 are permanent settlements.

Rafah and the Gaza Strip had nine settlements and five Nahal

footholds. Merhav Shelomo had five settlements. Likewise,

two footholds (in Kokhav Hashahar and Teqoa) and three

urban settlements were set up in Judaea and Samaria [the

West BankJ. The settlement division director general noted

) that on the Golan Heights all agricultural settlement possibilities had been exhausted-anything that would be set up In •

the future, he said, would have to be on an industrial basis.

Admoni added that in the Jordan Valley (from Bet She'an

down the Ein Gedi) there are 150,000 dunams of arable land

in areas with no Arab villages. The main problem was, he

said, the perpetual lack of water.

All the settlements beyond the green line number 6,500

souls, plus a little less than 1,000 in Qiryat Arba. To date

about 2.6 billion Israeli pounds [about $350 million] have

been spent on settlements in the territories, Admoni added.

Housing Minister Avraham Ofer noted in the course of that

cabinet meeting that 95 apartments had been offered for sale

in Qiryat Arba, while only 19 applications had been received.

Mr. Ofer said that contrary to the low demand in Qiryat Arba,

there was a great demand for apartments in Yamit.

Justice Minister Chaim Tsadok, who is also chairman of

the ministerial committee for Jerusalem, said that in 1968

there had been 275,000 residents in Jerusalem, out of which

204,000 were Jews (74 %). In 1975 the number of residents

in Jerusalem was 365.000, out of which 259,000 were Jews

(72.6 %), The increase in the Jewish sector was by 28 % and

in the non-Jewish sector by 35 %, said Zadok. The justice

/ minister went on to say that there were various plans on expanding residential settlement in Jerusalem, but differences

of opinion existed in the ministerial committee.

Source: Yehvda Litani, Ha'arets;, May 12, 1976, m Foreign

Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), May 13,1976.

YIGAL ALLON ON SETTLEMENTS

Q: Does the Cabinet have a clear overall policy regarding

settlement! beyond the green Una? Tha impression It that

deciaJons an being randomly adopted. What do you think?

A: If you ask me whether the Government of Israel has ever

adopted an inclusive conceptual resolution on where to settle

and where not. 111 tell you: such a plan has never been approved. However, if you turn up the empirical behavior of the

Government of Israel in determining the points of settlement,

youl! find that they add up to a concept: that is, settlements

are placed in strategically important areas along existing

borderlines or in the vicinity of areas likely to become border

lines in the future. The areas where we settle have no Arab

residents and we are not evicting Arab settlements in order to

replace them with Jewish ones. The truth is that I'd like to

see a faster rate of settiement and bigger settlements in those

areas which we are settling and with which I am in agreement.

I must say, at the same time, that in recent years a laudable

settlement plan has been carried out. Dozens of settlements

h«ve been sat up, but I prefer not to mention numbers.

Q: la a situation liable to be generated where the government

would decide to remove permanent settlements?

A: A government that sets up settlements is interested in their

permanent existence. At the same time, however, I'm not

ruling out the possibility that we shall have very great debates

about one point or another. I can even foresee a total debate

about the entire settlement issue: settlements are, in my view,

one of the greater levers in our political struggle over the demarcation of defensible borders within the framework of a

peace treaty. I see in these settlements, if they are deep-rooted

and properly formed and organized, a great contribution to

the security of the state, both regarding the day-by-day

tactical aspect, as well as the task of a well-fortified territorial

defense in the context of Israel's defensive deployment. . . .

.. .Demographically, the future map of Israel must insure

the states Jewish character, even if it will always include a

considerable Arab minority enjoying full equality of rights.

I'd like Israel to be in firm strategic control of the Golan

Heights, even if we come to terms over Judaea and Samaria

with a view to an Arab solution to the territories densely

populated by Palestinian Arabs. We have to have control over

the Jordan Valley from the hilltops, which are completely

desolate, and over the Judaean desert down to Qiryat Arba

east of Hebron. I'd be very glad to see the southern Gaza

Strip and the Rafah Approaches become an area pulsating with

Jewish life, thus constituting a barrier on the historical road of

invasion from the land of the Nile I'd say that I'm striving

for a solution that would give us a complete country strategically and a complete country from a Jewish national standpoint and at the same time provide an honorable answer to the

Arab Palestinian factor.

If they were to invite me to talk with them I would willingly

agree in order to try and persuade them that they are causing

damage to die settlement ideal and that they belong to those
68

damage to the settlement ideal and that they belong to those

who are standing in the way of the settlement that we so very

much need in outlying, strategic and essential areas and that

they are largely responsible for placing the problem of settlement on the table of international deliberations, something

that we have avoided for consecutive years.

Sources: Interview by Refa'el liaskan. Yedi'ot Aharonot,

May 14, 1976. m 1-BIS, May 17, 1976; statement on IDF

Radio, August 31,1976, in FBIS, September 1, 1976.

MOSHE OAYAN ON WEST BANK, GAZA,

JEWISH SETTLEMENTS

Former Defense Minister [present Foreign Minister] Moshe

Dayan called yesterday for an arrangement whereby Jews and

Arabs would live together in the administered territories, with

the Arabs remaining Jordanians and the land remaining under

Israeli control.

Speaking to Moshav movement members of his Labor

Party {Dayan left the Labor Party when he Joined the present

Likud government), the Knesset member said the decision on

what to do about the territories was the most important one

facing Israel since the founding of the state. The decision has

to be taken now, Dayan stressed, not left for some messianic

time when peace might come. In a swipe at Professor Yigal

Yadin [head of the DMC party in the 1977 elections, which

refused to join the ruling Likud coalition, see MERIP Reports,

no. 58], who has said Israel should make big withdrawals in

return for peace, he said: "Yigal Yadin claims he does not

believe peace will come in his lifetime. Then let him come out

ind say what he believes must be done in his lifetime, and

more important, during the next year." He stressed that

Israelis were in the territories by right, not as conquerors.

Asked what his map of Israel looked like, Dayan answered

that he was for giving the Arabs in the territories self-government and letting them have or keep Jordanian citizenship.

But the IDF should be the only army in the area and Jews

should be free to settle. The Gaza Strip would be entirely

Arab, but there should be Jewish settlements in Pi that Rafah,

Sharm as-Sheikh and the West Bank-on the top of the ridge,

not just in the Jordan Rift (as under the Allon Plan). These

settlements must be made by government decision, however,

and not in a haphazard way.

Questioned whether the Arabs would agree to this, he

replied that if we had to do things according to the desires

of the Arabs we could pack our bags and go to Canada. Dayan

then emphasized his point again: "I am not talking about a

partition, but of finding a modus vivendi with the IDF in

control. It is not an ideal plan but it is one you can live with.

It is also not an easy decision to take, but it is one that must

be taken as soon as possible, otherwise without our knowing it

another 10 years can go by. This decision is important also

so that we can activate settlement policies in the West Bank.

t is also important for ourselves, to emphasize that we are not

foreigners in the West Bank. Judaea and Samaria is Israel and

we are not there as foreign conquerors but as returners to

Zioti. An Israeli citizen shouldn't have to request a visa from

Mayor Jabari to visit Hebron."

Source: Excerpts from Jerusalem Post, July 15, 1976, in

FBIS,/u/y 15,1976.

THREE PLANS FOR "FATTENING" JERUSALEM

The loud and repeated words about the need for "fattening"

Jerusalem•a concept recently invented-can still be considered

mere words. The decision whether and how to "fatten" the

capital is in the hands of the commission of ministers for the

affairs of Jerusalem, which needs a long time to take the

decision•where and when the new ' 'he It" of settlements will

be built around Jerusalem and what the thickness of that

"fattening belt" will be.

The decision, if indeed a decision will be made by the

commission, will be the result of a series of complicated considerations involving political and social problems such at

demographic and transportation needs. The difficulty in arriving at the final decision will probably be further complicated

because there is no one general plan for the "fattening" of

Jerusalem. There are three such plans: the Ministry of Housing constructed an independent plan; the Israel Land Administration [ILA] distributed a green booklet which includes

its own proposal; and the chairman of the settlement department of the Jewish Agency, Professor Ra'anan Weitz, drew

his "fattening" plan. The various "fattening" plans concern

construction north of the capital as well as south of Jerusalem.

However, the most problematic are the '^northern" plans

which, no doubt, will raise the loudest discussions.

The first "fattening" plan was proposed to the Ministry

of Housing by architect Shmuel Shaked. According to that

plan two or three new cities and a number of neighborhoods

will be built near Jerusalem, beyond the "green line." The

new settlements are designed for "securing the security, the

future, the Jewish character and the national character of

Jerusalem in the future."

According to the Ministry of Housing proposal, a town of

1200 families in Givan and an urban neighborhood of 250

families in Gabel Muktam (situated 4 km. northeast of the

Horon entrance and 15 km. from Ramlah and Lodl are planned. However, various factions quickly expressed their reservations.

Among the first to express their reservations were members of Jerusalem's municipal council. According to them, the

"fattening" of Jerusalem by means of building the external

settlement belt will weaken the development of Jerusalem itself. They fear that directing means of construction as well as

young couples, old inhabitants and new immigrants to the new

city in Givan, would con potential inhabitants for Jerusalem,

which struggles to keep its Jewish identity, in the face of the

quick natural increase of the Arab population.

Execution of the "fattening" plans-north, east or south

of Jerusalem•involves expropriation of land now owned by

Arabs. The decision on additional expropriation of land is primarily a political decision which has to be made by the political echelon. Nevertheless, architect Brotskus who belongs to

the Ministry of Interior saw fit to comment upon that matter.

In a detailed memorandum about the construction plans of

the Ministry of Housing, Brotskus wrote: "There is sense and

purpose in building the settlements as proposed in the plan

only if there is an intention to annex that area and the area

between the settlements and Jerusalem to the Israeli state, and

in this way to fatten' Jerusalem." Architect Brotskus thinks

that if indeed there is no escape from the political "risks"

involved in expropriation of land, one wonders whether It

Is not better to take that "bold step" but in a different way,

\M., by expropriation of land in order to strengthen Jewish
/

69

position* in Jerusalem itselt-e.y., the area between the French

Hill and Neve Ya'akov-Hinitead of creating territories for distant suburban settlements."

Those who object to establishing small settlements or

towns, which would be some kind of "satellites" around Jerusalem, point out that the expenses of establishing those

"satellites" are very heavy, that there will be employment

difficulties and that the new settlements might become a

burden upon Jerusalem, instead of "fattening" the Jewish

settlement around the city.

Opposed to the plan of the Ministry of Housing which

proposes a city for 1300 families in Given, the I LA proposes

its own plan for the "northern region." According to that

plan, in Lower Beit Horon a city will be build on the scale

of Bat-Yam or Rishon Le'Zion which will include 25-40

thousand inhabitants attar three yean. "The place does not

necessitate, as far as the city is concerned nor as far as the

other settlements included in the plan are concerned, a significant deviation from the "green line" borders. It concerns

only a few kilometers, which constitute a reasonable deviation

in the framework of any agreement." This is written In the

plan of the I LA which emphasizes that there is neither intention nor need to propose special employment solutions for the

new city, since it would belong to the central region and

would be situated about 15 km. from Lod and Ban-Gurion

airports.

Parallel to the large urban settlement, the plan of the ILA

proposes that between Jerusalem and the new city in Lower

Beit Horon, some rural settlements will be spread. The location of the proposed settlements•Upper Beit Horon, Given,

Nebi Samuel and Ma'ale Abram•is topographically significant,

and the distance between every two rural settlements will be

about five km.

The third plan for "fattening" Jerusalem in the north is

the plan of the chairman of the settlement department of the

Jewish Agency, Ra'anan Waltz. According to his proposal,

in Givan, in the north of Jerusalem, a series of industrial

villages should be established Instead of a city. The principal

argument for that proposal is that establishing a city of over

25 thousand inhabitants might interfere with the desirable

rate of populating Jerusalem by Jews, whereas the establishment of industrial villages "does not cause any demographic

harm, it involves a relatively small investment in comparison

with the urban alternative, it will involve a relatively small

size of land which should be obtained from the Arabs, and

because of the proposed cooperative structure of the settlement it will not exert pressure on the Jerusalem center, which

is over loaded."

According to Ra'anan Weitz' plan, four settlements based

on sophisticated industry and services will be established in

"Gush Givan." "Since all the agricultural land in the region is

tilled by local villages, there is no possibility of concentrating

sufficient land for the maintenance of a settlement," Weitz

states. "On the other hand, the geographic location of the

region on the axis which connects the industrial regions of

the plain with those of Jerusalem can assure accelerated devel-

' opmant of Industrial or services plants. The natural landscape,

the historical significance and the short distance from Atarot

airport can contribute to the development of popular national

or international summer resorts."

Architect Brotskus, who is responsible for the plans in

the Ministry of Interior, criticize* Ra'anan Weitz' plan. In his

detailed memorandum, he expresses his reservations about

the proposed "dispersal" of the settlements. In addition, he

criticizes the plan of industrial villages, which, according to

Mr. Brotskus, 'have not been proved as a legitimate 'creature',

and they probably have no chance to succeed."

Some argue that repeated words about the plans for

"fattening" Jerusalem have caused disruption of the general

planning policy In the state by directing investments to development in the "fattening" regions, whereas it is preferable

to fatten "Internal" Jerusalem•by means of Increasing its

Jewish population.

The three different plans which contain long-range development objectives have already been submitted to the commission of ministers for the affairs of Jerusalem, headed by

Chaim Tsadok, minister of justice. However, the commission

will probably not discuss those plans before a professional

inter-ministerial commission completes examination of the

planning and urban aspects in their entirety and their effect

on the city of Jerusalem and on other sensitive regions which

necessitate concentration of resources and efforts on the part

of the state.

Source.- Yehiel Limor, Ma'u

provided by Israel Shahak.

, August 6, 1976, translation
70

NEW WEST BANK FACTORIES

Seven industrial plants, mainly in the metallurgy fields, are

being set up in Ma'ale Ha'Adumim. Each plant will employ

about SO workers. The ITIM correspondent reports that a

number of industrialists will soon transfer their plants to the

area. A defense industry plant will also be transferred. Defense

Minister Peres promised the help of his ministry for the new

plants which will be established in the ares.

Our reporter has learned that in urban settlement is to

be built in Ma'ale Ha'Adumim. A special committee is meet

ing to decide the exact location of the settlement. Members

of the committee include the commander of the central

region, the head of the Jerusalem region of the housing ministry and engineers from a private firm. This morning, the

cornerstone was laid for the first factory in the Ma'ale Ha'Adumim industrial zone.

Source: Jerusalem Radio, March 22, 1977, m FBIS, March

29,1977.

DISCUSSION ON "CREATING FACTS"

The Likud leaden announced this week that the Alton plan is

dead. However, although they [Likud] never accepted it as a

binding document, some 100 settlements have been established beyond the green line, from the Golan Heights in the

_^ north to Ofira [Sharm as-Sheikh] in the south, on the basis

of this plan. Some 8,000 settlers live in these settlements,

and the value of their agricultural produce this year will total

700 million pounds [about $70 million].

Since the six day war, the government has allocated about

4 billion pounds [about $400 million] for settlement in the

administered territories. Therefore, it appears that without

trumpets or vociferous statements, the Alignment government

has established numerous facts on the ground. It is difficult

to imagine that the Likud government will shelve the Alignment government plans for the coming year. These plans call

for the establishment of urban centers in the Golan Heights,

the Rafah Approaches, the Jordan Valley and a block of

settlements north of Jerusalem. Reporter Shimon Schiffer

reviews 10 years of settlement beyond the green line.

Schiffer: US Embassy officials in Israel have recently

shown great interest in what is taking place in the sphere of

settlement beyond the green line. A senior embassy official

has contacted the Housing Ministry on several occasions to

find out what is being done in Mashah, east of Kefar Sava.

He was told politely, but firmly, that he must contact the

chairman of the ministerial committee for settlement affairs.

Informed people already distinguish between the period

_,-oefore the Carter administration and that of the Carter administration regarding the US attitude to settlement in the territories. Only recently have US representatives in Israel allowed

themselves to express open discontent with what is being

done. A joke currently in circulation says that a senior US

official recently asked an Israeli politician: How many trucks

will you need to evacuate the settlers from the territories?

This question has bothered the settlers themselves from time

to time. However, It can be said that the question has become

vital these days in view of the possibility of negotiations taking

place to determine the peace borders of the State of Israel.

Minister Yisrael Galili, chairmen of the ministerial committee

for settlement affairs, has no doubts regarding the future of

the settlements in the territories and their place in the expected negotiations.

Galili: I am convinced that what we have accomplished

from the six day war until now constitutes en extremely significant reality from a political, security and national point of

view. The settlements constitute a deployment of extreme

value that expands the infrastructure of the State of Israel and

offers e dimension of entrenchment and firmness. We have

seen this even within the framework of disengagement of

forces agreements: as happened in the Golan Heights, the existence of the settlements was very valuable. This is especially

true when the question involves a framework of negotiations

for permanent peace. No settlement was established on the

assumption that we would abandon It.

Schiffer: The steps for settlement in Judaea end Samaria

were slow. Only after the Khartoum conference In 1969 were

regional plans prepared for settlement in the territories. What

were the basic assumptions of the planners? Professor Ra'enan

Weitz, head of the settlement department, answers this

question.

Weitz: Where an Israeli settlement is established, it should

be a permanent settlement that should not be removed under

any military or political change. Our settlements have always

established the facts of the map of Israel. Therefore, before

establishing a fact, it is necessary to think carefully whether

it will be possible to maintain this fact even if political and

military conditions change. Another assumption was that a

settlement must be made primarily to insure the security of

Israel. In other words, this is a subject that Is not negotiable,

and if we really stick to it, it will be possible to prove to our

supporters the justness of our action.

Schiffer: The spread of settlements increased, and as long

as calm continued and no reaction came from the supporter,

as Ra'anan Wertz calls the United States, the planners continued to follow the line described above under the instructions

of the chairman and members of the ministerial committee

for settlement affairs.

Galili: I cannot cite one single case of US pressure regarding the establishing of one specific settlement or another, and

I cannot cite any case in which consideration of the US attitude has tipped the balance regarding one specific settlement

or another. In general, we determined the location of settlements on the basis of various considerations-including political considerations, the prospect of achieving defensible borders, limitations stemming from the presence of local residents

and problems of land and water, and limitations stemming

from the prospects of the political struggle.

Schiffer: Yehiel Admoni this week ended his job as head

of the settlement department of the Zionist Organization and

the Jewish Agency. With regard to future action, he proposes:

Admoni: Whatever the considerations for settlement may

be, the consideration of giving people the chance to live a full

life is perhaps the central one. The scattering of settlements

here and there with no connection between them and without

the possibility of building a general system seems to me

basically wrong.
71

Schiffer: Minister Gilili says things in a different manner

which perhaps for the first time underline* the differences of

opinion between him and the Likud.

Geliti: We mutt not rush to establish new settlements in

the heart of Samaria, which is densely populated and also

does not haw the strategic security significance which would

make it necessary to settle there. There is reason to assume

that there is a difference between statements in the opposition

and the responsibility and limitations that bind a government.

It is clear that we are involved in a struggle for permanent

peacetime borders. It is clear that there are world powers that

want to deprive us of all the achievements of the six day war

and push us back to the June 4,1967 borders. There is a consensus among the people not to return to the June 1967 borders The struggle over settlement is an organic pan of the

struggle over the peace borders. I believe that the State of

Israel will mobilize the spiritual, popular and political forces

necessary to withstand this struggle awaiting it in the future.

Schiffer: So far, all the settlements established in the

territories had been approved by the ministerial committee

for settlement affairs. The settlement in Kaddum was the first

challenge to the concept of settlement guided by security considerations. The slogan of settlement in all parts of the land of

Israel raised by the Likud and the National Religious Party is

a concept that will have to stand the test of action by the next

government.

Source: Excerpts from Jerusalem Radio, June 11, 1977, m

FhlS, June 14,1977.

LIKUD PLAN FOR SETTLEMENTS IN WEST

BANK

The future of Judaea and Samaria and settlement beyond the

green line, as expressed in the Likud platform and as voiced

by Likud emissary Shmual Km in the United States, will

constitute one of the most controversial issues in the prime

minister's talks with the US President. Agriculture Minister

Ariel Sharon this week began examining plans for settlement

beyond the green line. Last Friday, the minister was handed a

plan prepared by a Likud team. The team was headed by

Knesset member Yigal Cohen. The plan, which is based on the

Likud platform, proposes the establishment of five large urban

centers in Judaea and Samaria in which some 150,000 people

will live. Since the prime minister's statement in Kaddum

[when Begin described all of "Judaea and Samaria" as liberated" not "occupied" territory), the government has displayed caution in its pronouncements on settlement beyond

the green line. According to a decision by Prime Minister

Menehem Begin, the government will discuss The issue only

after Mr. Begin's visit to Washington. In this spirit, the agriculture minister announced yesterday that at far as he knows, the

Likud plan has not been approved by the cabinet The Likud

i plan will be submitted to the ministerial committee for settlement affairs for discussion when the prime minister returns

from the United States. Correspondent Shimon Schiffer has

filed this report on the Likud plan.

Schiffer: The Alton plan is dead•on the map. in the

thinking and in the political conception of Israel, Prime

Minister Menahem Begin has said when speaking about the

future and about what is expected in planning settlement

beyond the green line. Does another plan already exist-the

Sharon plan, named after the chairman of the ministerial

committee for settlement affairs? Ariel Sharon says that

various plans are being examined.

Sharon: The first thing is that the government will first

of all carry out the settlement plens th?t have already been

decided. There is no reason to suspend these plans. Additionally, I believe this government will give an impetus to settlement and new plans will definitely be drawn up in addition to

the present plans.

Schiffer: Intensive discussions were held on this subject

last week. The time has come to examine the desires of the

movement which was in the opposition•a movement which

spoke about widescale settlement activity in Judaea and

Samaria. Questions were asked, if it at all possible to carry

out these plans in the reality in which the State of Israel

exists?

The planners were called to examine the plan which was

drawn up about halt a year ago and which has now been submitted anew to Ariel Sharon by Knesset member Yigal Cohen,

a member of Moshav Tel Adashim and a leading advocate of

settlement in the Likud. The proposal is called "the urban and

rural settlement plan in the Land of Israel." The plan it also

signed by Ya'acov Eigess, a former head of the settlement

department of the Jewish Agency and Professor Ezra Zohar.

Knesset member Yigal Cohen says:

Cohen: I definitely hope the Likud will carry out this

plan. This plan served as the Likud platform on the question

of urban and rural settlement. It has been examined and is

reliable. My evaluation is that we shall consider its implementation. We had a meeting this Friday with the agriculture minister and passed to him the details of the plan. We shall, of

course, assist and follow up the implementation. The agriculture minister asked us to submit the plan to him. I did that

this week after my meeting with him. He wants to study it.

We shall, of course, meet again and discuss the details.

Schiffer: Those who drafted the proposed plan speak

about settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel-from the

Golan Heights, through Galilee, and as far as Sinai and Sharm

as-Sheikh. We shall concentrate on what is planned for implementation in Judaea and Samaria. According to the proposed

plan, several towns will be established in Judaea and Samaria

in the coming four years•a town in the area of At-Tayyibah.

a town in the area of Mashah, a town in the area of Beit Sir*

on the northern Jerusalem-Tel Aviv route, a town in Given,

a town in Teqoa and a town in Ma'ale Ha'Adumim.

Cohen: Regarding settlement in Judeea and Samaria, the

plan is based mainly on a widescale urban settlement. It takes

into consideration the land and water limitations. In our opinion, it definitely permits the transfer of a large number of Jews

to the center of Samaria. This will be done by transfering to

this area all public construction which was planned according

to a master plen of the previous housing ministry for the

coastal area--m Holon, Herzliya, Bat Yam, Tel Aviv. All construction will be done using suitable and good quality material

and will attract Jews, who will pass to the center of Samaria

while maintaining their present places of employment.

Schiffer: This it the Likud plan for settlement. In order to

carry out the plan, Knesset members from the coalition parties

have set up a permanent forum to deal with settlement affairs.

Source: Excerpts from Jerusalem Radio. July 2, 1977, in

FBlS.July 7./977.
72

Senator ABOUREZK. The hearings are recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. They will resume in room 6226, which is down the

hall on this floor.

We thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee recessed.]
THE COLONIZATION OF THE WEST BANK TERRITORIES

BY ISRAEL

TUESDAY, OCTOBEB 18, 1977

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, B.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room

6226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator James Abourezk [acting chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Senator Abourezk.

Staff present: Wendy Grieder, legislative assistant to Senator

Abourezk.

Senator ABOUREZK. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness this morning is Dr. Salim Tamari, professor of

sociology at Birzeit University located in the occupied territories.

Dr. Tamari, we welcome you to the subcommittee's hearings. Do

you have a statement you would like to give to us ?

TESTIMONY OF SALIM TAMARI, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, BIRZEIT

UNIVERSITY, OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Mr. TAMARI. Yes; I have a few remarks, Senator.

I reside in the town of Ramallah in the occupied territories. I would

like to address my remarks to two issues which are of concern to me

and which I have observed during my teaching experience in Birzeit

University.

The first issue concerns the cultural aspects of the occupation during the past 10 years. The second one concerns the employment of

Arab labor in Israeli enterprises.

This past June was the 10th year of Israeli occupation of those

Palestinian territories which were not occupied in the war of 1948.

Most of us living under the occupation have suffered all kinds of

grievances, but, of course, ittouches us in different manners depending

on our position and situation.

For instance, those of us who were forced by circumstances to work

in Israel have come in closer touch with some manifestations of Israeli

oppression which have not been seen by others.

As an instructor in a small college near the city of Jerusalem, I have

been very close to the treatment by Israeli soldiers and military authorities of faculty members and students and other town dwellers.

The most salient aspect which I have personally observed in the

Israeli occupation has been the treatment of student demonstrators

(73)
74

who have resisted the impact of Israeli rule with all the means that

were at their disposal.

I understand your committee has heard various testimonies about

the establishment of Israel settlements in areas of the West Bank and

the Gaza territories, plus the other two Arab areas occupied, the Sinai

Peninsula and the Golan Heights.

During these 10 years of occupation, those of us who remained in

the West Bank and the other Palestinians in Gaza utilized whatever

was at our disposal to express ourselves. One legitimate means of expressing ourselves within the confines of Israeli occupation was the

press in Jerusalem and the cultural activities which already existed

in the West Bank during the Jordanian rule.

We have library associations, theater clubs, and a few literary magazines. All these instruments of cultural manifestations have been subject to extreme forms of control by the Israelis.

For instance, there are two theatrical groups in the town of

Ramallah where I live which have been putting on plays expressing

Palestinian cultural identity. These plays, in order to be performed,

have to be submitted, that is, the script has to be submitted in advance

to the Israeli military officer in charge of cultural activities to be approved. Usually approval does not relieve the members expressing

their views from interrogation later and quite often what is on the

surfare as literary expression of cultural identity is a cause for harassment and improvement.

We have a group of teachers and students who have been issuing a

journal of folklore which has been subject to extreme censorship by the

Israelis. We have only been able to issue six issues. The journal eventually ceased publication. All references to Palestinian identity, to express a folk culture, is frowned upon by the Israelis since it negates

the view of the present regime, and also the presumably liberal government of Premier Rabin before Mr. Begin came to power, that this

land is the land of Israel, and the Arab population is an alien force

inhabiting it.

Students have constantly been subject to interrogation and night arrests and administrative detention without any specific charges. This

goes on as a daily event.

Teachers are also subject to harassment. One of my colleagues, Dr.

Aruri, who is a physics instructor, has been in prison 3 years so far

under this administrative detention rule without being charged with

one single charge•political or criminal. This law of administrative

detention has been used against scores of intellectuals, students, and

the public in general. It is a heritage of British colonial rule promulgated in 1945 against terrorist activities and used equally against

Arab and Jewish partisans in 1945, but also now being used by the

Israel Government against Arab9.

Imprisonment, however, is not the only aspect of repression of students and academic circles. Deportation has been used extensively by

the Israeli authorities.

In the institution where I teach, the president of the university, Dr.

Nasir, was deported to Lebanon in 1974, after Mr. Arafat, the head of

the PLO, appeared in New York at the General Assembly, there have

been various protests throughout the occupied territories expressing
75

solidarity of the local population with the PLO. After that, the Israeli

authorities sought professional organizations and heads of local councils asscapegoats to quellthe demonstrations.

After Mr. Arafat appeared, not only the head of our university, but

two members of the board of trustees, Dr. Tobasi•who is also the

head of the dental association in the West Bank•and Mr. Abdul

Jawwed Salih, mayor of Al-Bireh•both members of the board of

trustees•were expelled to Jordan and Lebanon.

These people were not given any chance for a trial. They were similarly deported and with them scores of other citizens of the West Bank

who were neither charged formally, as they requested, and as we

insisted•and still insist•in every case of such deportation, but to no

avail.

Various democratic

Senator ABOUREZK. May I interrupt?

Let me ask you about the case of Dr. Nasir. I have talked with him

since his deportation. I think it is useful to put on the record exactly

what the circumstances were.

As I understand it, he did not take part in demonstrations at Birzeit

University. He did not lead them. He had nothing to do with them.

That was his statement to me.

Do you know if that is correct or incorrect ?

Mr. TAMARI. Yes; I was in Birzeit atthe time of his deportation. The

situation was boiling over because of several incidents. One was the

feeling that there was an impending settlement to take place in the

West Bank and that the Palestinians were about to have a state of

their own. Students were demonstrating in solidarity with the PLO.

There were attempts by the Israelis at the time to establish a puppet

regime called administrative autonomy. This is the political context

in which the deportation took place.

The Israelis moved that night by calling Dr. Nasir for interrogation. He was taken immediately to the military compound, blindfolded, driven by jeep to the Israeli border, and allowed to go with

another member of the board of trustees, through the Lebanese-Israeli

border completely blindfolded and without escort.

This, I imagine, is a situation which could have killed him very

easily because this is a military zone in which, how should we say,

soldiers act on the spot. He was fortunately not hurt. He was received

at the other end.

Dr. Nasir was subsequently, in retrospect that is, charged with having incited students to riot. I was at the university when the demonstrations took place. It was customary for the teaching staff of Birzeit

University and Dr. Nasir was included in that, to form a cordon between the Israel soldiers and the demonstrating students as an act of

protection.

Although we sympathize with the demonstration, we made a point

not to participate and as to not to give a legal excuse for the Israelis

to intervene.

We also wanted to keep under control some activities by some

students who might attack soldiers and that could be used as an act

of provocation to use firearms.

\

v
76

That act of protection was later used by the Israelis to indict Dr.

Hanna Nasir similarly without trial of having organized the demonstration.

Senator ABOURBZK. Yes; thank you. Please continue.

Mr. TAMARI. The other aspect that I would like to address your committee with is the employment by Israel of between 60,000 to 80,000

workers in the occupied territories. We do not have exact figures because many of these workers are hired hands and do not go through

labor exchanges.

On the surface, Israel presents this issue as promoting the welfare

of the population. However, upon investigation we find that these

laborers perform as cheap labor in Israeli enterprises like factories,

but especially in construction. Israel, at the moment, needs a vast

amount of housing settlements, both for Jewish settlers in the occupied

territories as well as for Jewish immigrants, most of whom at the

moment come from the Soviet Union from Georgia and from Russia.

(I think the last count is about 76 settlements in Gaza, the Golan

Heights, the West Bank and Sinai.)

Our workers are constructing houses for Israeli immigrants to come

and settle quite often in land which has been confiscated from Arab

owners.

The Jordan Valley and the area around Nablus, where land has been

confiscated from farmers, ostensibly for security reasons because it is

near the border. Later cooperative farms were established for the

Israelis.

The Arab peasants, Palestinian peasants, who use to own these lands,

and having lost their farms to use, have been forced as a result of this

act to find employment as hired hands on the very farms which they

owned. This is the situation of around 80,000 workers who commute

every day from Gaza and the West Bank to Israel. Not all of them, of

course, are peasants. Many of them are refugees from the war of 1948.

From their wages, which on the average is 40 percent less than the

average wage of Israeli workers, is deducted significant amounts of

money ostensibly for social services, medical insurance, unemployment

benefits, et cetera, none of which•and this is my point•is enumerated back to the workers as services (with the exception of Arab

workers from East Jerusalem who are partly organized by the Israeli

labor unions and do receive part compensation for these deductions).

Other than that, most of the 80,000 workers receive no benefits for the

deductions.

In effect, what I am saying is that they are hired as cheap labor in

Israel enterprises, especially construction. They are the last to be hired

when there is need for their labor and they are the first to become redundant when there is a recession in the Israeli economy. This has

already taken place after the war of 1973, and particularly in 1974 and

1975 when thousands of Arab workers became redundant and found

no employment.

Senator ABOUREZK. DO you know the extent of land confiscation in

the territories ?

Mr. TAMARI. I do not have figures with me. However, I would venture to say that most of the confiscation has been taking place in the

Jordan Valley area and the Rafah approaches in Gaza district, and

the Nablus area.
77

Senator ABOUREZK. Would you call that good farmland or poor

farmland ?

Mr. TAMARI. In the Jordan Valley good land was confiscated. The

west bank, in general, is very arid. The little farmland that is good

there exists in the northern districts, in Nablos and in the Jordan

Valley.

Most of these Israeli settlements which have been established so far,

aside from the Golan Heights, have been in the Jordan Valley area.

Ostensibly, as I said, for security reasons, but most of them are agricultural communities.

New Jewish settlers are brought from the population of Israel

proper to these areas.

May I continue ?

Senator ABOUREZK. GO right ahead.

Mr. TAMARI. My last point is this. I want to mention about both the

oppressive practices against students who have been in the forefronts

of protests (as they usually are everywhere) in the occupied territories

against Israeli occupation and the utilization of cheap Arab labor

which has been a force in the outmigration of thousands of Arabs outside the Palestinian territories.

This is crucial for several reasons. People who migrate are the young

of the population. These are young males who usually have to support

their families by seeking employment in other Arab States, and more

recently in Jordan, where there has been a construction boom.

This has created a situation where academicians and professionals,

and also laborers who were made redundant and who no longer can

find employment in the occupied territories, or in Israel, as a result of

the recession, have left the country, many of them because of political

repression, and created a demographic imbalance in that section of the

population which is most productive.

So, if we look at the structure of the population between the ages

of 30 years and 44 years, we find that the ratio of females to males is

in excess. The consequence of this in social terms is very severe because

it creates a distorted composition of the population. It leaves a very

important section of the productive population out of the country and

creates conditions for further reduction of the population in the occupied territories.

I do not say that Israel is enforcing measures of emigration by physical means, but it is creating the conditions whereby the dwindling of

the population of the West Bank and Gaza is becoming a reality.

This, I would insist•and many people who think like me would

insist•has been the consistent policy of the Israeli authorities since

1967. That is to make a place for potential Jewish settlements throughout the occupied territories, not only the West Bank and Gaza, but also

in occupied Syria, the Golan Heights, occupied Egypt in the Sinai•

where vast lands have been confiscated and new settlements have been

planned.

I think my colleague, Dr. Dakkak will address, in part, this issue.

I thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. Yesterday there was testimony on a couple of

different pointsthat I would like to ask you about.

First of all, do you believe that there is a pattern of harassment

and oppression against intellectuals and political leaders which would

20-488 O - 76 - 6
78

result in emptying out the occupied territories of that political leadership leaving only what would be called a peasant class or working

class which could be made available for cheap labor for the Israel

Government and the Israeli industry ?

Mr. TAMABI. I think the repression is generalized, but I do think

there is selective pressure against those sections of the population

which we might call the intelligencia who can most articulate the

grievances of the population in the occupied territories.

Atthe moment a large amount of this oppression is directed against

those mayors in the West Bank who have been consistent in proposing

that the only solution to the current debate about settlement of the

occupied territories is by the formation of an independent Palestine

state•independent from both Israel and Jordan.

In 1976, in the election for the municipal councils, there was an

attempt by the Israeli authorities to create an alternative leadership

of the Palestinians composed of mayors who would create a presumed

autonomous zone.

That attempt failed through the defeat of several slates which were

either openly pro-Israel or conciliatory to Israeli rule, and slates of

nationalist candidates were elected throughout the West Bank municipal councils.

These people are currently under pressure by Israel either to submit,

that is, to accept Israeli rule in modified form as part of the overall

settlement, or be subjected to mass harassment and not being able to

leave towns and not being able to collect money for municipal councils

for civic services.

For instance, the city of Ramallah, where I live, has had a deteriorating situation in its educational services (appointment of new teachers,

et cetera) and in conducting daily services, because of difficulty in

getting aid supplied by either private contributions, by Arabs abroad,

or aid which these cities have been able to get through from friendly

Arab governments.

But the main brunt of this attack, of course, is direct. It is in the

form of daily interrogation for various people who simply speak their

minds. They may have signed a petition or participated in a vocal

protest. All this without any formal charges.

Sometimes it can be quite severe. It takes the form of torture. It

takes the form of physical deportation. It takes the form of arrest

without charges taking place for months and months and as in the

case of the few people I mentioned.

Senator ABOUKEZK. DO you know about those who have been tortured bv the Israeli Government ?

Mr. TAMARI. Yes.

Senator ABOTJBEZK. Who are they ?

Mr. TAMARI. I have talked with a particular person who is a former

editor of a newspaper who has been tortured.

Senator ABOTJREZK. What were the circumstances surrounding that ?

Mr. TAMARI. He has been arrested in a village near Ramallah in, I

believe, 1969•but I am not sure. It could be 1968. He was charged

with conspiracy to commit armed acts of resistance. He has been

interrogated and beaten up and tortured and charged finally, after

confession, with a sentence of 5 years. He has since been released and

is now stillliving in the West Bank.
79

I have talked with several other people who have been tortured,

including students of mine. I do not think I can say their names,

but I will mention that this is something you are probably familiar

with. The Sunday Times has issued an extensive report fully documenting this and it has been published in several other places.

The Israeli Government has replied to this report, but so far has

not produced concrete evidence to contradict the evidence put out by

the Sunday Times.

Senator ABOTJREZK. Perhaps you do not know, but I will tell you

that the London Sunday Times' story on torture got almost no coverage in the United States. It was probably a consensus here by the

American press that the story should not be repeated, apparently

because it only received two or three sentences buried deep in another

story in the Washington Post. I never saw it anywhere else.

There was also a charge by a witness yesterday with regard to the

settlements themselves that there is a great deal of racism involved

in the settlements in the occupied territories and they are established

only for Jews and that neither the Arabs nor anyone else could not

move into the settlements or live in them.

Do you know whether or not this is true ?

Mr. TAMARI. I would hardly call that a charge because the Israeli

Government does not claim that these settlements are housing projects for the Arab population. These are openly established settlements,

many of them on confiscated land, for the clear purpose of settling

Jewish immigrants and Israeli citizens, who are Jewish, and who

are by definition not Arabs.

Israeli citizens are categorized by the census of Jews and nonJews, and these settlements are exclusively Jewish settlements which

Arabs are allowed to build but are not allowed to settle in at all.

In many cases many of the houses in these areas are left unoccupied

despite the extreme housing shortage in the occupied territories•not

only in those territories, but in Israel itself. For example, in the town

of Upper Nazareth, which is an exclusively Jewish settlement,

built on land confiscated from Arab citizens of Nazareth, which is

experiencing an extreme housing shortage because it is limited by

land expansion, housing has been built exclusively for Jewish immigrants. More recently by some devious means, you might say, a few

Arabs acquired and were granted some of these empty flat6 which

are open for Jewish immigrants only. A big havoc was created in the

Israeli press that Arabs have been renting houses in this exclusive

town.

This situation is much more severe in the occupied territories which

is not legally Israeli and in which Arabs, by no means, can acquire

residence in those Jewish settlements.

There is another example from Kiryat Arba, which is a Jewish town

built after 1968 in Hebron. This has been populated by religious

zealots, many of them sympathizers of the extreme movement known

as Gush Emunim. They have been harassing Arabs conducting their

daily life activity in Hebron itself. They have claimed that they have

certain rights to establish law and order in the host city which hosted

them. Of course, they have not hosted them willingly, but this is what

happened.
80

In that particular town there are a few small factories which the

Jewish settlers do not have enough labor to employ. So what happened

is that they are employing Arab labor to create commodities for a

town ostensibly built for Jewish settlers, but in which the Jews who

are there are apparently not capable of filling all the jobs created.

So, Arabs are accepted as laborers, cheap labor, I would say, but

are definitely accepted as neighbors or potential residents within the

settlements which are exclusively for Jewish people.

Senator ABOUREZK. The witness yesterday who testified for the

Israeli position, Mr. Yehuda Blum, talked about deportations. He said

that everyone who had been deported was a Jordanian citizen and in

all but three cases these people were deported to Jordan. He saw nothing wrong with taking people out of their homes and deporting them to

their own country.

I wonder if you might comment on that observation.

Mr. TAMAEI. I think this is a form of double talk which has permeated the Arab-Israeli conflict. You can put a label on a person and

use that label to rationalize whatever you do to that person. There is

no such thing as Palestinian citizenship at the moment. All Palestinians happen to be citizens of one country or another. In fact, we have

become citizens of over 100 countries precisely because of the results of

the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.

Jordan has been one of the few countries which has given its

citizenship to Palestinians in 1948. So, we are legally Jordanian citizens. Every citizen of the West Bank, every Palestinian, is a Jordanian

citizen by naturalization. This is the country which has annexed•

and I use the word annexed•in 1948 and whose majority population

is Palestinian.

To use that fact to say that Palestinians on the West Bank are

Jordanian and therefore when they are deported they are sent to their

own country, I think, is a very sick kind of rationalization.

It would be equivalent to saying that a country in the West which

ships back Jewish immigrants, for instance, the United States or

England•both are countries that have received many victims of

fascism after the Second World War•saying that they were former

inhabitants of Russia or what have you, or Poland, et cetera, I think

it would create a very great protest, and justly so, by people who

consider themselves democrats.

Senator ABOUREZK. Would you use the same rationale just to show

how outrageous that kind of contention is? American Jews are also

citizens of Israel under the law. If someone were to pass a regulation

saying that all American Jews should be deported to Israel, and there

is nothing wrong with sending them to their country of nationality,

then I guess that would point up how ridiculous the argument is.

Mr. TAMARI. Yes.

We feel strongly about this point. Daily we see foreign immigrants

coming in to take our land and our homes. Walking in Jerusalem and

seeing people coming from all over the world, especially from Europe

and the United States, and taking the attitude that this country is

theirs under conditions which the inhabitants of that country, the

Palestinians, are daily being deported and denied their human rights.

Itis a humiliating experience for us.
81

Black humor is usually developed toward these people. But this

is the only way to tolerate it. It is an intolerable situation.

Basically the cruelty of it is the audacity of many of these immigrants who see themselves both as Americans and Israelis without

taking into accounts the rights of the indigenous population of these

territories.

Senator ABOUREZK. I have one more question.

Do you expect a retaliation by the Israeli authorities when you

return to the West Bank, that is, because of your testimony here?

Mr. TAMARI. Retaliation against me, do you mean ?

Senator ABOUREZK. Yes.

Mr. TAMARI. Well, we all expect some kind of repression when we

stick our necks out. These acts are performed in various degrees. I do

not know what will happen to me.

However, some of us are more fortunate than others. For instance,

some of us by having access to the foreign press and by appearing in

such august bodies as yours, do have some protection by virtue of the

dependency of Israel on the United States for its support. Our hope is

precisely here, that is, that this dependency can be used as pressure

in order to force Israel to make concessions to the Palestinian population. These are human rights which are theirs by virtue of having

lived there for thousands of years.

I cannot answer your question because I do not know what will happen. However, what will happen to me would be very small indeed in

relationship to what happens to those people who have no access to

ways of seeking help. Most of these people are being imprisoned in

their own country. If they leave, they can only leave on the condition

of not returning to their homes.

As an example, quite often prisoners who are serving sentences for

very small things, like demonstrations or distribution of leaflets are

allowed to leave the country and escape their prison sentences under

the condition that they do not return. These are the people who really

suffer.

Whatever happens to me in comparison to them is very, very minor.

Senator ABOUREZK. Ithink we have no more questions.

I want to express my thanks and the thanks of the subcommittee for

your appearance here and your testimony. We appreciate it very much.

It has been an excellent contribution to the overall hearings. I want to

wish you good luck on your return.

Mr. TAMARI. Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. Our next witness is Dr. Ibrahim Dakkak. He is

an engineer by profession and a resident of Jerusalem and who has

specialized in research on the status of Jerusalem and the effects of

Israeli occupation on Arabs living on the West Bank.

We want to welcome you to the subcommittee hearings. You may

proceed.

TESTIMONY OF IBRAHIM DAKKAK, AN ENGINEER, JERUSALEM

Mr. DAKKAK. Thank you, Senator Abourezk, for the invitation. I

thank you for allowing me to express my views about Jerusalem and

the West Bank.
82

I have few points to add to what has been said already. I approve of

what my colleague, Mr. Tamari, said and consider all of his comments

correct and in their places.

I take the problem as the chairman of the engineers association

in the West Bank and as the engineer in charge of the restoration of

the Aksa Mosque.

In the first case we have had grave experiences as far as the profession itself is concerned. The economic situation which resulted after

1967, which was, in most cases, a recession in the Arab economy, forced

many of the engineers and skilled laborers to leave the country and

seek work outside. In many other cases some of the laborers had to go to

the Israeli side to help establish new homes for the newcomers who

were taking the place of their brethren who left the country after

1967.

I have another point concerning that side of the problem. We had

two colleagues who were in prison for no reason given by the authorities. One of them is the late Husni-Haddad, an engineer, who spent 22

months in prison. Then he was deported to Jordan.

The second one is Mohammed Abbas Abdul Hakk from Nablus who

was detained for 29 months in prison for no reason known to anybody.

He was released lately.

His brother as well, who is an engineer, was deported from Nablus.

He is now living outside.

This is as far as the engineering side is concerned. Also from that

side I can see the deportation of some of my colleagues in the professional associations complex. One of them is Dr. Abdul Azziz Al Haii

Ahmad and Dr. Tobasi, both of whom were chairmen of the association of the dentists in the West Bank at two different periods.

I do not want to expand on that point. I would like to go to the other

point now.

I will talk about the part whose information I gathered during my

work as the man in charge of the restoration of the Aksa Mosque. This

work put me in daily contact with the problems of Jerusalem during

the time I occupied that post.

It comes to me sometimes that something new is coming on the horizon as the Israeli authorities have decided to equalize the services in

the West Bank and Gaza Strip with that of Israel.

This in itself has been done also in the case of Jerusalem when it was

annexed to Israel.

In the case of Jerusalem, the excuse given by the authorities was

that the two sectors of Jerusalem would enjoy complete equality in respect to services, welfare, and education. That was reinforced by the

Thalman report submitted to the Secretary General of the United

Nations in 1967 which stated that the purpose, as declared by the Israelis, was to equalize the legal and administrative status of residents

of these parts of the city which were not previously controlled by

Israel with that of Israeli citizens.

So, there is a great possibility that the step taken by the Israeli authorities to equalize the services in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

would be a prelude to the complete annexation of the West Bank to

Israel. The blessings of annexation as witnessed in Jerusalem showed
83

up early in June 1967 when the Mograbi Quarter just adjacent to the

Wailing Wall was completely swept away by bulldozers. That quarter

contained historical schools and hospices and buildings. They were

taken away without even recording them in the appropriate form.

Also on the West Bank three villages, Emaus, Beit Nuba, and Yalo,

were also taken away and nobody could know now where they were.

In the place of the Mograbi Quarter a piazza was established for the

Wailing Wall, and in the place of the villages, a settlement was established. The establishment of that settlement did not only occupy the

lands of these three villages but it took also the fertile land which belonged to the other villages neighboring these three villages.

The inhabitants had to go either to the West Bank or they had to

work on their own land as hired laborers.

The annexation which the Israelis dislike to mention because they

prefer to use the word "unification" has gone on with the Jerusalemites

seeing many of their places and much of their land being confiscated.

It has been beyond any doubt that what has happened in Jerusalem

was not a unification because until today's date there are two Jerusalems. There is the Arab Jerusalem and there is the Jewish Jerusalem. Until now everybody could see that the two cities are demographically, socially, geographically, and physiologically two cities

and not one city.

The only unification which took place was the unification of the administration against the will of the Arabs.

Israel from 1947 until now failed to find any unified society within

its borders and nobody expects Israel to be a unified society in Jerusalem. Many Israelis were encouraged to live in Arab Jerusalem after

June 1967, but these could not live for a long time.

The reasons for this are many, but the main reasons are the services

given by the authorities to the Arab part of Jerusalem. They are

inferior to those given to the resident of the Jewish side of the city.

From 1947 until now, not a single neighborhood in Jerusalem or

Israel was built as a mixed neighborhood for both Arabs and Jews.

Not a kibbutz was established as a mixed kibbutz. In other words,

what has happened so far in Jerusalem was the subjection of the will

of the people there to the will of the Israelis in as far as annexation

is concerned.

Therefore, an Israel design of unification in the West Bank and

Gaza Strip would take the same form as in Jerusalem.

The need of the Israelis to annex Jerusalem stems from their attempt

to justify the religious Biblical vision which frames the Zionist ideology. In fact, it is prompted by the desire of the Israeli leadership to

divert the attention of the Israelis from their daily social plight to

other goals and means.

The Arabs of Jerusalem feel that they have their full right to see

the future of Jerusalem in an Arab perspective. They are justified as

well in their refusal to see it through an Israeli eye. The overall

Israel attitude has kept Jerusalem demographically, socially, and even

geographically divided in spite of all the Israel efforts.

The Arabs, in their defense of their identity and the Arab character

of their city and their property and their holy places and their culture
84

are at loggerheads with the Israel authorities. They have developed

the feeling that the challenge is human and universal. They believe

rightly that it is the duty of humanity to stand to their side.

After the annexation of Jerusalem, the authorities turned to the

practical issue; that is, the Judaization of the city. The first step was

to set up commissions to draw the new Jerusalem planning scheme. In

1968 the Prime Minister, Mr. Eschkol, declared that the historical

right of the people of Israel will have to be taken into account and that

Israel would, on the other hand, be unable to ignore the concentration

of Arab populations in certain areas.

The official planning scheme for Jerusalem was not known when

its blessings showed up very quickly in the form of land expropriation

in the new and old city of Jerusalem. The steps which follow explain

the general characteristics of the planning scheme to be applied in

the city.

Some aspects of these characteristics were conveyed to the public

through the local press, other publications, and building activities. The

following points explain the general aims of the scheme.

In the old city of Jerusalem the Israelis expropriated 116 dunams•

every four dunams make 1 acre. The plan called for the expulsion of

10,000 Arabs from the old city of Jerusalem and at the same time

called for the housing of 5,000 Jews there. The quarter was taken over

completely on the one hand and the Arab areas outside the city wall

were classified into three categories on the other hand; archeological

sites where building was not allowed, green areas where no construction was allowed, and special areas subject to special regulations which

limit building activity.

Most of the land left outside these zones was exappropriated. This

exappropriated land exceed 20,000 dunams used completely for the

building of new Jewish neighborhoods and satellites, namely, Ramat

Eschkol, Maalot, Dafna, Nevi Yacoub, Gilo Ramat (Nabi-Samuel)

and East Tellpiot.

Senater ABOUBEZK. Are Arabs permitted to move into these particular satellite settlements ?

Mr. DAKKAK. As I said before, these were exclusively built for the

Jews, and until now, from 1947 to 1977, no Arab was allowed to buy

any flat in any Jewish neighborhood.

Senator ABOUBEZK. That is still the case today ?

Mr. DAKKAK. Until now, itisstill standing, yes.

The future plan for the rest of the Arab land in the area of

Jerusalem and its environs are not yet officially revealed, but information leaked in the local press revealed the following.

Seventy thousand dunams to the east of Jerusalem were announced

to be a restricted area by military order. On this land the Maale

Adomim (Al Khan al Ahmar) Center was established and new Jewish

settlements were suggested by the plan to be built around the city of

Jerusalem. Three of the settlements and four villages are suggested

to accommodate between 75,000 to 150,000 inhabitants. Five other

satellites are to accommodate 25,000 inhabitants. The location for these

settlements is suggested to be to the north and northwest of Ramallah

Al Khan al Ahmar mentioned before.
85

Ten thousand dwelling schemes is under consideration. It was

reported that extra 10,000 other dwellings are to be built by the year

1982. . j.

By the end of the decade there should be close to 40,000 Jewish

families living beyond the former armistice line, that is, moved to

the Arab part of Jerusalem.

The aim of this pursuit is to keep the Arab population in Jerusalem

within the one-third minority limit. This policy was maintained and

the execution of it was facilitated by the open bridge policy. This

policy acted as the release valve for the jobless and the homeless and

effectively decreased the resistance of the population against Israeli

occupation.

The one-third/two-thirds policy logically called for the same percentage of construction activity for both groups, but it was never

followed by the Israeli administration. The Israeli plan called for

the building of 68,000 extra rooms for the Arabs by the year 1982 and

250,000 rooms for the Jews, based on an occupancy rate of 1.2 persons

per room for the Jews against 1.6 persons per room for the Arabs.

If we convert the 68,000 rooms to housing units that should have

been built until 1976, that would have come to 7,400 units. During

the same period, up till 1976, only 1,000 residential units were established in the Arab sector of Jerusalem, either in the form of simple

units or as extensive additionsto existing housing.

In other words, the Arab housing program as envisaged by the

planning authority, lagged by more than 6,000 units.

On the other hand, it is a well-known fact in Jerusalem that many

residential units in the Jewish neighborhood were built on exappropriated Arab land found no Jews to occupy them. These were left to

accommodate potential newcomers.

The Israel drive toward giving Jerusalem a dominant Jewish

character touched extrasensitive points; namely, Al Haram al-Sharif.

The problem of the property of this holy sanctuary was given prominence upon the challenge of the Israelis to the Moslem authority. The

Moslems, from the beginning of the Zionist movement, have been

deeply suspicious of Jewish intentions. They always feared that the

Jews ultimately aimed at the seizure of the Al Haram al-Sharif and

the destruction of the Islamic sanctuary.

Although this was denied by the Israelis, time and again, there were Jewish

writers, scholars, and visionaries who gave substance to such suspicions.

I am quoting Walter Zinder, who is a Jew.

Moreover, in June 1967, within hours of the conquest of the Old City, the chief

rabbi of the Israeli army, Goren, with some of his followers, entered the area

and conducted Jewish prayers in the Al Haram. A few weeks later he suggested

erecting a synagogue on the esplanade of Al Aksa Mosque.

In addition, in August 1969, 4 days before the fire in Al Aksa Mosque, a group

of the Jewish national youth (Bitar), against the protest of the Moslem officials,

held a ceremonial parade near the Dome of the Rock where their leader in his

address complained that the temple mount was still held by aliens and called

for the rebuilding of the third temple.

The rebuilding of the third temple means the destruction of Al Aksa

Mosque which is part of Al Haram al-Sharif.
86

Moreover, in September 1967, the Defense Minister confiscated the

keys of the Mograbi Gale, thus depriving the Moslems of their longestablished right to sole control of the entrances in the areas of the Al

Haram al-Sharif. This reflected a deep concern and suspicion that the

Haram could be desecrated and probably subjected to sinister designs.

This feeling was further reinforced by the burning of Al Aksa Mosque

on August 21,1969.

Although the authorities were able to prove that the gutting was

made by a Christian from Australia and not by a Jew, the investigation committee set up by the Moslem council shed doubt on the official

claim.

The committee which was composed of engineers reported that the

fire started in more than one locality at the same time which implied

that more than one person was involved. The appeal of 13 Jews in

April 1969, 4 months before the fire in mosque, to the high court of

justice was considered a prelude to the Israel designs against the Al

Haram al-Sharif.

The order asked the minister to give cause why he should not insure

that suitable protection be given by the Israeli police to prevent the

applicants' prayer from being disturbed and to show reason why

instruction should not be given to Israel police personnel to refrain

from interfering with the applicants' prayer.

A few weeks ago it was declared that the same Rabbi Goren was

going to publish a map showing the places where Jews could pray on

the Al-Haram al-Sharif which is the Moslem sanctuary. The rejection of the high court to the request was based on the remarks of the

attorney general which agreed with the views expressed by the Minister of Religious Affairs in the Knesset which stated that there is

nothing in the law which forbids the gathering of Jews from visiting

the temple mount and praying there.

He added, "However, the implementation of this right depends on

the maintenance of public order and this was within the jurisdiction

of the Minister of Police."

The attorney general in his report assessed the problem as political

and not judicial.

This decision which was taken by the Israel officers practically

legalized the Jewish claim to the property of Al Haram al-Sharif.

This created tension in the city itself between the Moslems and the

Arabs on the one hand and the Jews on the other hand.

A similar experience occurred in the west bank area when the

Jews were allowed to pray in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

Another problem faced by the Arabs in Jerusalem was that, upon

the occupation of Jerusalem, the officials of the Israel Ministry of

Religious Affairs wanted to impose the Israeli laws on the Sharia

legal system of East Jerusalem, and more the ministry wanted to take

over the control of the Wakf property, which is a Moslem endowment.

The Israelis considered thatthe Sharia (Moslem religious law) and

the qadis (judges) did not renounce the Jordanian citizenship and

did not swear allegiance to the President of Israel.

The reaction of the Moslem leadership came in the form of FATWA

which objected to the interference of Israel into Moslem religious

affairs.
87

The Israelis also stopped at no limit to force their will and create

conditions suitable for their purposes. One of their activities which

caused concern to the Arabs and the world at large was the archeological excavations conducted around the Al-Haram al-Sharif. Two

digs were started, one under the supervision of Prof. Benjamin Mazar

of the Hebrew University and the other under the supervision of the

Minister of Religious Affairs.

Senator ABOTTREZK. Excuse me. Do you have testimony on the effect

of the occupation on Arabs living in the west bank ?

Mr. DAKKAK. By presenting what I am presenting, I meant that

this will happen sooner or later on the west bank if Israel designs

continue like this.

The effect, of course, on the west bank on the Israeli is immeasurable

in the form of the amount of recession which has taken place in the

economy and the effect, that is, the harm which was inflicted on the

health and educational systems and also the cause for people to leave

the country and go outside.

The main thing that one would feel and see was that•because of

the deterioration in these fields, a great many people turned from owners of land to workers in the Israeli enterprises, whether agricultural

or industrial.

If I look to the problem of health, for example, which is deteriorating very much under governmental control I find that the private

efforts of individuals and groups in the west bank is taking the greater

load of that.

We have a shortage of technical personnel who can handle this

problem.

My colleague before me, Mr. Tamari, has shown how great the effect

was and I add to that that the ultimate result of the Israeli designs

is that the Arab9 in the west bank will end up by being a mobile labor

force in the area without having any relationship to the land.

In other words, they are losing their property. They are losing the

control of their destiny. They are losing their culture which has been

very much hampered by the Israeli activities.

I repeat again that what is happening in Jerusalem is a small picture

of what might happen in the west bank. I was talking about the

excavations in Jerusalem. I mentioned that there were two excavations One of them was in the southern part of the Al Haram area

which was conducted by Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University.

There is a danger that this excavation might tempt the Israelis to

claim that all the walls of Al Haram Al-Sharif are part of the Wailing Wall. In other words, the whole area would be turned to a religious

domain controlled bv the religious authorities and any Arab who

would like to go inside to pray would be controlled by this authority.

The other dig which was started by Rabbi Perla and under the

supervision of Rabbi Perla from the Ministry of Religious Affairs,

was in the form of a tunnel under historical buildings of the Mamluki

period. The tunnel, which was visited many times by myself, is 2 to

8 meters wide, dug through the soil bearing the foundation of the

Islamic historical buildings on top of it.

One side of it exposes the Herodian Wall and the other side was

supported by timber for some time. The meager supervision of the
Ministry of Keligious Affairs on this dig is a cause for more suspicion

and worry for the Moslems, especially if we consider the influence

held by the chief rabbis over this ministry and its personnel.

At least three important buildings were very much cracked because

of that tunneling. One of them was built in the 13th century. The

other was built in the 15th century and there was also another one

built in the 15th century.

These acts were condemned by UNESOO and by many other bodies,

outside and inside among them the Arab institutions in the west bank,

but until now nobody is sure that the work has stopped.

Again about the Old City of Jerusalem, I repeat again, that the

Jewish quarter, which has been confiscated completely from the Arabs

will now be extended. The expansion of that will be at the expense of

the Arabs and extra people over and above the 10,000 which were

expelled already from the Old City of Jerusalem will go out.

Their chances to find a place to live in/outside the city walls are very

small because land is scarce there. On top of that there are regulations,

or at least methods used by the authorities to postpone or to find

excuses to postpone the building activity of the Arabs in that area.

Also, the cost of building in the Arab area is becoming very, very

high and the Arabs are unable to meet it because the area left is so

small and the competition is high, which makes the cost of the land

go higher.

No projects were conducted by either side to solve that problem,

so the only solution for these people is either to go to the west bank

and thus increase the housing problems in the west bank, or they go

to the east bank across the Kiver Jordan where they might find some

refuge and work.

These are some of the points which I would like to mention. I even

know of cases where I myself was involved in the Old City of Jerusalem where we had a house. That was supposed to be confiscated by

the authorities•under the pretext that that house was in bad condition. When I visited that house, which belonged to my family, I found

that the house was in good condition. But the aim was just to throw

the people outside who were part of my family.

We had to resort to courts and other means to stop that. But so far

we are no sure that we can keep that house.

The problems in the west bank and Gaza, if Israel continues this

policy will be great. The fruits have shown up.

One of them is the restriction of water for irrigation in Gaza and

the Jordan Valley. Very lately the Israelis have resorted to controlling the amount of water given to the Arab land for irrigation.

Meters were installed on wells which were dug by the Arabs in their

land in order to control the amount of water used for irrigating Arab

land.

This, of course, will lead to the decrease in the agricultural production and ultimately the land used will be smaller. In that case, the

neighboring settlements, which were established by the Israelis, will

be taking advantage of that.

Another problem which we have faced also on the west bank was

electricity and the promotion of electrical power. For instance, in
89

Nablus, the municipality has been working very hard to convince the

authorities that they should be allowed to import electrical generators

to increase the power used in that area.

Until now the authorities have refused, and suggested that it might

be better and fit to connect the Nablus area with the national grid in

Israel and thus annex the area electrically.

A third thing which has been observed on the West Bank and Gaza

is that the forests which were grown up for so many years were dried

out by the authorities. The reason for that is that the forests by staying on the West Bank would cause part of the water which comes in

the form of rain to stay in the ground. But if these dry out, the water

will enrich the aquifers which supply the main water system of Israel.

The West Bank is being impoverished at the expense of supplying

water to the Israelis. The problems in the West Bank and Gaza which

are faced in the agricultural sector, are the marketing problems.

People are finding problems in marketing their products. The products

have been either marketed by Israeli establishments which dictate conditions which fit their own interests, or the product is allowed to be

marketed outside in the east bank of Jordan.

In other words, the economy of the West Bank and Gaza strip is

being connected directly to the economy outside the borders. In case

the bridges were closed, the economy would be affected very badly.

The municipalities are shouldering great responsibilities in the absence of a national rule in the West Bank. They are finding great

difficulties in shouldering these responsibilities. I know lately of problems which happened in Kamallah, for example, that the commander

general of the West Bank started to negotiate with people about water

supply to the city with people who had no relationship with that

subject.

For example, with the director of education and with other notables,

and neglecting the municipal council and water authority. He refused

to contact them.

He meant to create an alternative leadership in the area.

Because the mayor of Kamallah stood against the occupation, he

found great difficulties in going out of the country to attend a seminar

in London. Very lately, he was given the permission, but at the same

time he received news that his brother, who is a medical doctor graduated from the United States was being asked not to stay in the area

because his residency permit expired and there was no intention to

extend it.

The area is in great need of his services and the services of many

others. Services in general are deteriorating very badly. They claim

there is a need to equalize the services but it is not meant to raise the

standard of services as much as a prelude to the total annexation of

the area.

Thank you.

Senator ABOTJREZK. Thank you very much for your testimony. We

appreciate your appearance here today.

Mr. DAKKAK. May Isubmit these documents?

Senator ABOTJREZK. Yes; we will insert them in the record at this

point.

[Material follows:]
90

PALESTINIAN POLITICAL

PRISONERS

and Repression in Israel

and The Occupied Territories

A translation from the French of a brochure published by the Comite's <U Soutien au peuple PaUslinun in Switzerland

by the Lebanex Association for Information on Palestine, March 1975.
91

ISRAELI LEAGUE FOR HUMAN

AND CIVIL RIGHTS

SECOND APPEAL

To the Israeli & World Public Opinion

On January 28, 1974 we asked you to protest against

the oppression prevailing in the occupied territories.

In this appeal we mentioned the names of five men

who were arrested in Nablus (West Bank} and who

have since then "disappeared".

Two of them, Wajdi Kamhawi and Baasam Abdul

Razzak Amira, were "found" on February 13, 1974

by their families and lawyer, Mrs. Felicia Langer.

Hereunder is the account they gave to their lawyer

and families•in the presence of witnesses•of what

happened to them from the moment of their arrest.

Wajdi Kamhawi declared that he had been arrested

and locked in the jail of Jenin. There, his interrogators beat him and spit in his mouth (the pseudonyms

of these "investigators" were "Abu Ali" and Abu El

Ras"). Wajdi denied all the accusations he was

charged with and offered to present an alibi. Four

days later, without further interrogation, he was

transferred to an unknown prison inside Israel. There

his interrogation started again. He was stripped

naked and the same policemen who had questioned

him earlier threw cold water at him. He was forced

to drink salt water and was beaten. This treatment

was repeated•at intervals•for four days, after which

on January 22, 1974 he was sent back to the Jenin

prison. From then on he was no longer ill-treated.

Bassam Abdul Razzak Amira, who is now detained

in jail at Hebron, declared thai he had at first been

held in the Jenin prison where investigators•whose

names he docs not mention•beat him and pushed

a stick down his mouth. They then undressed him

completely and poured cold water all over him, following which he was handcuffed and a stick was

twisted through the handcufts. He was able to show

his lawyer wounds and $cars on both hands. The

authorities later transferred him to an unknown prison

inside Israel, where he was placed naked under a

cold shower, every half hour. He was forced to drink

salt water and was only allowed a very small quantity

of drinking water. Every now and then, instead of

the cold shower, his investigators would cover his

body with snow. Shortly after he was transferred

back to the Jenin prison, then to Ramallah and

finally to Hebron. The night of this last transfer, he

was ordered to take off his shirt and shoes and stand

naked•for about an hour•under the snow in the

prison courtyard. From there, he was taken to the

interrogation room and his interrogators•about

five•proceeded to slap him, asking him which slap

hurt the moat He was then beaten on his hands and

all over his body. His legs were swollen from the cold

and the beating and he could no longer walk. He-was

placed in a cell for eight days after which the questioning started all over again. He was forced to sit on a

chair with his hands tied behind his back resting on

the seat of another chair. While in this position one

of the interrogators kicked him in the stomach and

another put his shoe in his mouth. Bassam Abdul

Razzak Amira begged for mercy in the name of his

children and the name ofGod. They replied laughing

that there was no God in that place. During this whole

period and until February 13, 1974, he was unable

to walk because of the wounds on his legs. He was

put in solitary confinement and was not allowed to

either wash or change his clothes.

We wish to point out that in spite ofthe ill-treatment

they were subjected to, neither Wajdi Kamhawi nor

Bassam Abdul Razzak Amira admitted to any of the

charges they were accused of and would not sign

confessions presented to them.

In the meantime two other men disappeared,

Joseph Nasser of Jerusalem, owner and editor of

Alfqjer newspaper, and Abdallah Abu Siriani of

Nablus. The latter was arrested in a Nablus street on

December 18, 1973.

Again, we appeal to the Israeli public opinion and

that of the whole world to protest against such acts

which are both arbitrary and in violation of Human

Rights.

We would like to request you to make your protests

public and to address them to the person in the Israeli

government who is in charge of the occupied territories, Mr. Moshe Dayan, Minister of Defence.

We also urge you to send these protests to the

United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldhcim.

TESTIMONY OF FELICIA LANGER ON

ISRAELI OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES

For many years Jewish personalities have been

denouncing the daily practices which the occupying

authorities try to camouflage. Felicia Langer, a

lawyer, made a testimony in which she said:

"The Israelis maintain the same martial law which

was imposed by the British. Since the occupation of

Palestine, military courts function daily. According

to the Israeli newspaper Maoris of May 13, 1971 in

Gaza alone 5620 Palestinians have appeared before

these tribunals between April 1970 and April 1971.

Among these, 27 have been condemned to life imprisonment and penal fines have exceeded 300,000

Israeli pounds."
92

More recently, the Tarn of August 24, 1974 affirmed that since the beginning of April 1974, 896

Palestinians from the occupied territories were arrested and imprisoned.

Felicia Langer:

"Who then are the people who 611 the prisons?

They include old people over 80 and children under

13 years.

"What are their crimes? They either belong to a

•octal organization or have participated in a peaceful

demonstration, or distributed pamphlets. These people are accused of acts of terrorism (acts carried out

in the defence of their country and their land).

"Also treated as serious criminals are Palestinian

refugees who have returned to join their families

dispersed during the war. These are deported to

Jordan after serving a prison sentence.

"Since the 1967 war, 10,000 houses have been destroyed or razed after the explusion oftheir inhabitants;

this figure is not definitive, and it is pointless to describe the destruction caused to the houses at Amwas,

Beit Nuba, Yalo."

The number of destroyed houses since 1967 stands

now at 19,000.

Felicia Langer:

"Thejustification ofthese explusions and dynamiting

is found in the martial laws of 1945, but the pretexts

are often fragile•mere suspicion permits explusion

and destruction.

"Another measure consists if the appropriation

of property, whether private or public, in order to

'judaize' all the territories, and this is done in accordance with laws that were in force during the British

Mandate. Under this law, the Arabs of Palestine

have been deprived of a large portion of their land

for 20 years. The law helps the designs of the occupation authorities especially in Jerusalem and its outskirts.

To replace the destroyed houses, large buildings

are being erected to house Jewish families while the

Arafat are compelled to find refuge in villages far from

their place of work and very different from those

they were born in.

"IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS NO LIMIT

TO THE POWER OF THE USURPER AND HIS

CAPACITY TO FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR

SEIZING ARAB PROPERTY: THE RULE BEING

•WHAT IS MINE IS MINE AND WHAT IS YOURS

IS ALSO MINE'."

INTERVIEW WITH ISRAEL SHAHAK

President ofthe Israeli League for Human

and Civil Rights

Israel Shahak, professor of Chemistry and president

of the Israeli League foe Human and Civil Rights, was

interviewed during his trip to Switzerland by the

Palestinian Committee in Geneva.

Qj "What has led you to be concerned with the

problem of political prisoners in Israel?"

A: "My aim is to reveal to public opinion the conditions of political prisoners in Israel, whether Jewish

or Arab, from the moment of their arrest to that of

their indictment, not forgetting the tortures which

are inflicted on them. It seems to me that this is

essential to make people aware -of the problems posed

by Zionism."

Q,; "What problems? How is the link made between oppression and Zionism by public opinion in

Israel?"

A: "One must not forget that Zionist oppression

is applied to Jews as well as to Palestinians. However,

the Israeli Jews are less vulnerable because the law

gives them certain democratic guarantees which are

denied to the Arabs. This explains the small proportion ofJewish political prisoners. Besides, I am myself

accused of an offense against state security for having

been the guest of the Dutch Palestinian Committee.

For public opinion this link between oppression and

Zionism is not always evident. However, the campaigns dealing with the problem of political prisoners

are very important in showing up Zionism, which

is the basis of Israeli society. As far as I am concerned,

Israel is an apartheid society because it does not

allow Palestinians to live in Israel. Israel claims to

be a democratic society, it presents the kibbutz as a

socialist institution and it seems to me it is very important to uncover this official propaganda line. It is important to say that the kibbutz a an apartheid institution for no Palestinian can become a member ofit. In

any case, the kibbutzim work collectively as employers

of the Palestinians who work for them at a miserable

salary. That is why I feel compelled to fight the idea

of the socialist kibbutz. Can there be a socialism of

apartheid? To this question the Zionists have no

answer. Apartheid is also very clearly manifested

with respect to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. I would like to refer here to the problem of

the dismemberment of families, provoked by a policy

which prevents a member of a family who is living

outside the occupied territories from returning to live

with his relatives. This is the surest way to pressure

Palestinian families out oftheoccupied territories ifthey
93

want to live together. It is a very sure psychological

weapon especially when it is accompanied by the

permission for Palestinians living ouside the occupied

territories to visit their families for six weeks in summer.

These six weeks are terribly insufficient for a family

separated tor a long time. The etfect would be to

push the Palestinians to leave their land."

(£. "Do you have an estimate of the number of

people who make these visits?"

A: "Last summer there were 150,000 brothers,

sisters, parents, cousins who had to leave after the

allowed six weeks. This, therefore, is another aspect

of the policy of apartheid. Bui the racist character

of Zionism is apparent at all levels of social life. It

appears even in Israeli official sources: if, for example

one refers to the annual statistics published by the state,

one would notice two series of figures, those regarding

Jews' and those regarding 'Non-Jews'. Another

striking example: the situation in the Gaza Strip.

Gaza has the appearance of a concentration camp

surrounded by barbed wire on all sides with guarded

entrances."

Q_: "There are Arab workers in the Gaza Strip

working in Israeli factories. How do they go from

their place of residence to their place of work?"

A: "These workers are transported to their factory

under the surveillance of armed guards. They cannot

leave the factory during the day, and if sometimes

they stay for a week, they have to sleep in tents in the

open."

Q: "Since your work is centered around the problem

of political prisoners, can you describe to us oppression in Israel?"

A: "Oppression follows naturally from Zionism.

Is is manifested in the large number of court cases for

ofTences against state security. All these court cases

do not imply the use of violence or armed struggle:

to paint a slogan on a wall is regarded as an offence

against security; to possess a Palestinian flag is a crime

of high treason. I had for instance to defend boys

of 15 and 16 who were condemned to long periods

of detention for having raised a Palestinian Hag in

their school. With respect to the legal framework,

these cases are based on confessions. If the prisoner

does not confess he is finally released whether he

is an Israeli or a foreigner, but if he comes from the

occupied territories he is simply put under administrative detention. It is a detention ordered by a simple

military warrant. Thus an officer can sign a paper

requesting the imprisonment of such or such a person

in the interest of state security, and it is sufficient to

detain that person."

Q,; "You mentioned confessions, are these spontaneous or extorted?"

A: "Torture is often used in Israel but the most

frequent cases occur in the occupied territories to

incite people to confess. These confessions once signed

by the prisoner can no longer be revoked. It is, by

the way, infinitely more difficult for a lawyer to defend

a prisoner who has signed a confession than it is to

defend a person under administrative detention. The

only way to obtain these confessions is therefore by

torture: I want you to know that the interrogation of

Palestinians is always carried out when these men are

naked. They arc beaten on the sensitive parts of their

body, namely, their genital organs. The next stage

sometimes lasts very long. Usually it consists of locking

die prisoner always naked in a solitary cell measuring

lm x2m and built of rough concrete with sharp

edges. The prisoner is not even given a blanket. The

third stage is reserved for the more hardened. It consists of tying their hands for long periods with elastic

bands and then hanging them down either from the

window bars or from the heavy steel door of the cell.

Furthermore, there are what could be called the

personal whims of the interrogators aimed at humiliating the prisoner. The examples arc many and

varied: forcing them to walk on fours like an animal,

shouting: T am a dog', ordering them to stand

naked on one leg for lengthy periods, etc.."

Q..- "What has, according to you, triggered these

waves of oppressive practices?"

A: "First of all, one must understand the fate of

the Palestinians in the occupied territories who have

come to realize more and more that after seven years

of existence under such conditions, there is no future.

It is therefore natural that in such situations, political

resistance is organized, followed by waves of repression. So everything is tied to the general political

situation. The wave of repression was especially

aimed against the left, because it has created an organization called 'The National Palestinian Front' which

was able to organize an effective resistance movement:

strikes, demonstrations, etc.. In the occupied territories, the Palestinians know that they have only one

way left open to them, struggle, becadse the life they

lead is worse than the one they had led in Jordan in

the sense that Hussein did not ban their folklore or

poetry, nor did he send inspectors to their schools

with the aim of abolishing from the programmes any

mention of Palestine and Palestinian nationality, nor

did he prevent families from uniting, even though he

is a major enemy of the Palestinian people."
94

Q,. "Your conclusion?"

A: "Zionism prospers only because it hides the truth

behind fake cliches, behind a veritable myth. Your

duty consequently, as well ours, it to destroy this

myth and unveil the truth about Israel."

SURVEY OF PRISONS

World Peace Ctxmdl

At die beginning ofJune 1974 the Israrn League for

Human and Civil Rights published the following

adverdsment in several newspapers:

"On April 22, a wave of arrests was carried out in

the eastern part ofJerusalem and on the West Bank

of Jordan. Among those arrested were public personalities, workers, syndicate leaden students, all well

known in Palestinian circles... For a long time the

authorities refused to allow their families and lawyers

to visit them. However, by order of the Israeli courts,

some of them were allowed to receive visitors. The

prisoners were able to inform their lawyers and relatives

of the brutal forms of torture to which they were

subjected. Citizens of Israel, you must react."

The League also distributed a report on the tortures

which were reproduced in several Israeli liberal newspapers, namely %p Haderekh and al-lttihad.

THE NABLUS PRISON

Last June 3, lawyers Hanna Naquara and Ali

Rafi met with three prisoners of the Nablus prison in

the presence of security forces: Mr. Mohamed

Hijazi, 38, married, three children, member of the

sydnicate leadership of the West Bank; Mr. Mohamed

Abbas Abdoul Haq, 37, married, three children,

engineer employed by the Nablus municipality; and

Mr. Jamal Youssef Freitekh, 44, married three children, construction worker. According to their lawyers,

the prisoners had suffered the following treatment:

Mttkods of interrogation in uraeli prisons.
95

MOHAMED HljAZI

Soon after hit arrest, he was taken to the Nablus

headquarters where Israeli policemen beat him all

over, aiming particularly at his genital organs. This

treatment lasted for three days, after which he was

transferred to Ramaltah. Immediately after his arrival, the prison guards hung him from the ceiling and

beat him up. When he lost consciousness, they would

awaken him with cold water. His interrogators

admitted "having killed Farid Altachtouch" (a Palestinian patriot who died in an Israeli prison} and that

"they were ready to kill him too if he refused to confess .. . they could liquidate him, make him go mad

or deport him to Jordan."

Later, he was taken in a police car to the prison

ofJerusalem... handcuffed with a bag over his head

so that he could hardly breathe. The Israeli soldiers

ill-treated him during the whole trip. In the prison

of al-Maskoubyah, the treatment was harder. He

was locked in a cell with the "civil offenders" who took

advantage of the slightest pause from torture to place

lit cigarettes between hb toes. A few days later, he

was returned to the Nablus prison and was kept in

solitary confinement until his transfer to the concentration camp of Sarafand, where the most subde forms of

torture are practiced. He was locked in a minuscule

cell, completely naked, and his bed was the floor

covered with gravel. Sometimes his guards would

order him to stand, handcuffed, holding out a chair,

and unable to protect himselffrom the terrible beatings

they inflicted on him. He was sent back to the Nablus

prison without an opportunity to consult his lawyers.

MOHAMAD ABDUL HAQ

According to hb lawyers, Mr. Abdul Haq was not

treated any better. They saw the guards applying lit

cigarettes to hb skin. The prison adminbtration

refused to provide him with any medical treatment.

Mr. Abdul Haq informed hb lawyers that he was

taken from the Nablus prison to a concentration

camp where he had to crawl on stones as sharp as

knife blades. To amuse themselves, the soldiers would

ride him like a donkey and repeat endlessly: "You

are a female ass, get down on all fours." Then he was

hung down from the ceiling and beaten up. At present

he b still in hb cell handcuffed.

JAMA t. YOUSSEF FRFJTEKH

According to his lawyers, Mr. Freitekh was subjected

to similar treatment.

AL MASKOUBYAH PRISON IN JERUSALEM

On May 5, die lawyers, Felicia Longer and Waltd

Al-Fahoum, were able to meet Hassan Abdul Majid

Abu Kheir, a student who lives in Arab Jerusalem

and who had been arrested on April 22.

"Six. days after his arrest, interrogations started.

He was forced to drink two cups of concentrated nit

after which the following words were exchanged

between him and his interrogator!: "Confess that you

are a communist and a member of the Palestinian

National Front.'

" 'I am not a member of anything. I had not yet had

the honour."'

"Then undress'.**

The lawyers then describe the scene which followed:

Hassan stood naked before hb interrogators, who

then hit him with a heavy truncheon on hb genital

organs. A piercing pain ran through Hassan who

lost consciousness. The next day a new interrogation.

He and hb family were insulted and attempts were

made to humiliate him in every way. He was ordered

again to undress and was given the same horrible

treatment as on the previous day.

The same day, hb lawyers saw the prisoner Omar

Mohamed Oudch, 24 years, student in ArabJerusalem.

He told them that as soon as he was arrested, and in

five sessions of two hours each, he was beaten with a

truncheon on hb fingers and on the head; he was

then forced to lie on the ground and a burning chemical

substance was applied to hb genital organs. He was

threatened with electroshocks, was lucked in the

stomach, the liver, the back, he was made to jump up

and down continuously for long hours. The men who

questioned him wanted him to give them information

about hb cousin, Yacoub aMbeidi, and hb brother

Abdul Rahman, whom they knew nothing about

but who were suspected of belonging to the Palestinian

resistance by the occupation authorities. He was

accused ofbeing a member of an organization engaged

in the struggle against the occupation. The lawyers

added thai they met him six days after hb arrest and

that the tortures seemed to have left him very ill.

Felicia Langer requested to see prisoner Khadijah

Abon Arkoub, a 27 year-old widow from Doora near

Hebron, who had been arrested in January 1974

without apparent charge. The prison Authorities told

her they did not have a prisoner by that name. And

it was only after protesting vehemently that she was

able to see her on June 13. This b what Mrs, Langer

said:

"It was only after pretending that I was going to

ask for her release on bail that I was able to see her.

She was brought before a judge and only at that mo-
96

ment was I able to exchange a few words with her.

She showed me and the judge that her hair had been

torn from the roots; she had kept them in a nylon bag;

I tried to offer this to the court as evidence of torture,

but the judge refused to react. After her release with

no charges made against her, she was again arrested

on suspicion of being a communist. I cannot reach

her and no one will tell me in which prison she is being

held."

THE RAMALLAH PRISON

On May 29, following a large campaign of protests,

lawyer Felicia Langer was able to sec her client,

Sleiman al-Najjib, 40, a political leader of the West

Bank. She made the following comments about the

meeting:

"He was handcuffed and had obviously been severely tortured. Those who questioned him had tried

to destroy him physically by every means. He told

me that he was regularly beaten until he lost consciousness; he would be revived with cold water and then

beaten again, including his genital organs. In addition to the handcuffs, his legs were chained 24 hours

a day. His torturers took turns in questioning him.

He was also inflicted with the special torture treatment

which was practiced in the concentration camp of

Sarafand.'1

•Ahmad Mohamed Samara was arrested on April 22,

he was constantly beaten and has a broken nose.

•Ayed Abdullah, 19, his genital organs and his nipples were pressed and squashed until they bled.

•Add Barghouti, the place ofhis arrest was kept secret

for weeks after his arrest. When his lawyer, Mrs.

Felicia Langer, finally met him he told her bow his

guards had brutally tortured him, beaten him, put

him in solitary confinement, how he was given eleetoshocks, was hung from the ceiling, and finally how he

was prevented from sleeping.

•Ghassan Harb was brutally hit on the head, the

fingers and the genital organs, was awakened each

time he fainted with ice water, and was kept in solitary

confinement. His health deteriorated so much that

his life was in danger. His wife, who recently saw him,

has written to the International Red Cross asking

them to intervene for Kis transfer to a hospital for

treatment.

•Abdallah al-Beirat, the prison administration pretended not to know where he is, but the prisoners ofthe

Ramallah prison have told their lawyers that he was

kept in solitary confinement for two weeks, during

which he was subjected to regular interrogations.

He was brought to his cell unconscious and covered

with blood. The prisoners added that al-Beirrat

has become deaf due to repeated beating on the head

and ears.

Mohamed Shqueirat, whose lawyer Felicia Langer

had on several occasions tried to sec him, was told

that he was held in Jerusalem. When she started the

formalities in Jerusalem, she was told that he was in

Ramallah. This went on for some time and she was

unable to see him. However, several prisoners revealed to Mrs. Langer that Shqueirat was kept in

solitary confinement, subjected to intensive questioning and tortured daily.

OTHER PRISONS

Walid al-Fahoum, a lawyer related that after a long

delay imposed by the occupation authorities, he was

able to meet his client, Husni Haddad, an engineer,

at the prison of al-Maskoubyah in Jerusalem. (Mr.

Haddad had been arrested on April 22 but his lawyer

was only able to see him about three weeks later). He

described to his lawyer the treatment he received

from the moment of his arrest as follows:

"I was first kept in the Hebron prison then transferred to an unknown place which 1 later knew was a

military concentration camp, where I was forced to

stand on one leg for a long time, holding out a heavy

chair. I was locked during the whole period in a

small cell the floor of which was covered with gravel.

My hands were always tied behind my back. The

prison authorities regularly put lit cigarettes between

the toes of my right fool. During the interrogation, a

heavy black bag covered my head, preventing me from

breathing normally."

Walid Al-Fahoum, after much delay, was also

allowed to see his client, Altaian al-Rashmawi

(a worker from Beit Sahour). He relates that after

his arrest on April 22, Attalah was first kept in the

Hebron prison then transferred to Ramallah where

he was interrogated for several days on end.

Attalah remembers with horror what happened to

him on May 5: that day, he was beaten on his genital

organs and head throughout the interrogation. From

Ramallah he was transferred to the prison of al-Maskoubyah in Jerusalem, then brought back to Hebron

and finally incarcerated in a small cell in the Bassa

prison in Bethlehem.
97

On May 25, he was taken to an unknown military

concentration camp and interrogations were resumed.

His guards took turns in torturing him day and night

without respite. He was given the usual treatment;

beatings, cell floors covered with rough stones, standing

up on one leg, crawling, burning cigarettes between

toes, etc...

Mohamed Suleiman Atwan, 56, native of Arab

Jerusalem, was arrested for the 6rst time on April

23, released and then arrested again a few weeks later.

His interrogation on June 2 proceeded as follows:

four men surrounded him and beat him up all over

his body, especially his back and his genital organs,

he was then forced to carry a chair on his head. He

lost consciousness and when he woke up he was in

the street. The next day he was called for an interrogation. He immediately contacted his lawyer, Felicia

Langer who saw the terrible condition he was in. A

doctor examined him and diagnosed a hemorrhage

in his testicles caused by the beating. He was immediately operated on. Admitted to a hospital in

Arab Jerusalem, he was visited by an International

Red Cross Representative on June 5.

WHY THE ARRESTS AND WHY

THE TORTURES

On May 14, an influential Israeli newspaper, Dover,

known lor its close tics to the establishment, published a report on the arrests in the occupied territories

stating that they were for "political reasons" and

aimed particularly at the National Palestinian Front.

It recognized that "the persons arrested had committed no crime" except that of engaging in political

activities.

On June 26, a communist deputy, Tawfiq Zayyad,

made a speech in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament)

in which he unmasked the real reasons behind this

large wave of arrests. He said:

"In this campaign, several well-known Palestinian

leaders were arrested, among them were communists,

patriots and liberals. Their only crime is opposition

to Israeli occupation and upholding the right of the

Arab Palestinian people to self-determination."

On May 3, the Arab Israeli newspaper al-Ittihad

published the following report with regard to the

reasons underlying the arrests and tortures:

"It is no secret that the new arrests are politically

modvated, aimed at dismantling the popular political organizations in the occupied territories which

form the National Palestinian Front It is not

a coincidence that this campaign was launched a the

Rounding up detainees.

time when the Front published its programme in the

first issue of its newspaper, Palestine: opposition to

Israeli occupation, refusal to return the West Bank

to Jordan, recognition of the legitimate national

rights ofthe Arab Palestinian people, i.e. the establishment of their state on the territories which Israel

must evacuate."

In a protest memorandum sent to the Israeli government, the jurists of Nazareth describe the arrests

as "political terror directed against the National

Palestinian Front and its members and aimed at

preventing the true representatives of the Arab Palestinian people from participating in the Geneva Peace

Conference. Its objective is also to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories that

Israel must evacuate."

From the above, the following conclusions can be

drawn:

1. The arrests are politically motivated.

2. None of the persons arrested committed a crime.

3. The victims ask for the withdrawal of Israel from

the occupied territories and the respect ofthe legitimate

national rights of the Arab Palestinian people.

4. The victims were and still are subjected to torture.
98

THE COUNTER-EFFECT OF

THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Israeli authorities and the multi-facetted information media close to the ruling circles, have remained

silent on ail that is happening in the occupied territories, particularly the arrests, the tortures and the

persecutions. Sometimes an official journal or an

Israeli daily publish some news items regarding the

arrest of saboteurs, of the discovery by the police of

"dangerous elements." But that is all. In the face

ofthe present wave of arrests and terror the authorities

have adopted the policy of complete silence. Only

the prisoners' families, their lawyers and four communist deputies in the Israeli parliament have defied

this conspiracy of silence, they have attempted in

every way to expose the facts to Israel and world

opinion.

The Israeli authorities who always contest the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, utilize

the most ignoble means to drown the voices rising

against their occupation and annexation of the occupied territories. At the same time they try to present

to the world a peaceful image ofthe occupied territories,

enjoying the fruits of a "democratic and friendly

occupation." They even exert tremendous pressure

to hide, from the Israeli public, the truth about what

happens in these territories, by stirring up chauvinistic

reactionary sentiments. This helps them to realize

their schemes•the non-recognition of the existence

ofthe Palestinian people and therefore ofits legitimate

national rights: All this enables Israel to consolidate

its occupation of the Arab territories.

But this conspiracy of silence will not last long.

Many sources in Israel and in the world are unveiling

the facts every day through resolute and courageous

actions by liberal and peaceful forces in Israel.

On Jury 2, the communist bloc in the Israeli parliament insisted on an open debate in parliament about

the arrests and tortures in the occupied territories,

and proposed that parliament request an immediate

•top to torture and the release of all political prisoners.

They also requested that a committee composed of

representatives of all parliamentary groupings be

formed to study all the registered complaints pertaining to torture: A large majority of the deputies voted

against this proposal and even refused to discuss it.

The presiding chairman of the session•a leading

member of the extreme right group, the Likud, went

as far as to threaten to register an official complaint

against the communist bloc for "violation of norms".

The government in its reply tn the proposal presented,

admitted that arrests had taken place but refused to

give additional details.

The Israeli Court of Appeal denounced the behaviour of the police and the Security Department for

refusing to reveal to the lawyers concerned the reasons

lor the arrest of several people•Suleiman Najjab,

Khaiie Hijazi, Jama! Freitekh, Husni Haddad,

Muhamed Abu Gharbyah, and others• and for forbidding their lawyers from exercising their functions.

Lawyer Felicia Langer has registered a complaint to

the Court of Justice requesting that a law be passed

authorizing lawyers to see their clients.

The two lawyers. Manna Naquara and Ali Rah

have sent a telegram to the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, DrT Kurt Waldheim, during his tour of the

Middle East in June, requesting the intervention of

the international organization to put an end to the

torture of political prisoners.

The Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights

held a press conference on June 18, in which Professor Israel Shahak, President of the League, and the

lawyers Felicia Langer, Hanna Naquara and Ali

Raft spoke about the prisoners and the tortures to

which they were subjected. They accused the Israeli

authorities of violating the Geneva Conventions.

A letter signed by over 100 mothers and wives was

sent to the President of the United States, Richard

Nixon, during his recent visit to Israel, in which

they requested his personal intervention for the liberation of their husbands and sons. The letter mentioned

that the prisoners had been allowed to meet their

lawyers only once since their arrest five months ago

and that their families were not permitted to visit.

A similar memorandum was sent by the Higher

Islamic Committee of the West Bank to the United

Nations Secretary-General and to President Nixon in

which the Committee requested the ending of torture

of political prisoners and their immediate release.

Sit-ins were organized by the prisoners' families

m Beit Sahour, Jerusalem, Nablus and other towns

in the occupied territories in protest against the arrests

and the ill-treatment of the prisoners.

Protest meeting are being organized daily in the

occupied territories by the liberal forces in Israel

against the wave of arrests and the torture of prisoners.

Delegations of the inhabitants of different towns in

the occupied territories have met with the Israeli

military governors in their respective regions and

requested the immediate release of the prisoners.

In the face of increasing protests in the occupied

territories and inside Israel itself, the Zionist elements

in agreement with the authorities strive to intimidate

the prisoners lawyers who were the first to unveil the

truth concerning torture and ill-treatment of prisoners.

Lawyer Felicia Langer, who actively defends the
99

political prisoners is their fint victim. For a long time

now she has been receiving threatening messages and

telephone calls. On June 13, the situation became

much more serious when several bandits entered her

house in Jerusalem and placed a charge of dynamite.

It was only through her and her husband's vigilance

that a tragedy was avoided.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILIES OF

THE PRISONERS

"Our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons have

been under so-called preventive detention since April

22, 1974, because, according to the Israeli authorities,

of alleged expressions against the celebrations of Israeli

independence day. They are still in prison without

having been charged.... A number of them, according to their lawyers, have been brutally beaten.

"We cannot visit them although the legal period

of investigation is over. The authorities still refuse to

supply any details concerning the prisoners Suleiman

Najjab, Mohamed Abu Gharbyeh, Abdullah alBeirat, Husni Haddad and others. For the Israeli

public, the auhioriiies try to justify their campaign

ofterror by declaring that these prisoners are members

of a 'sabotage organization.' This expression is used

loosely all the tune by the authorities.

"As is well known to the authorities and the liberal

forces for peace in Israel, the truth is that these prisoners

are in favour of a just peace in the Middle East and

are fervent opponents of any form of chauvinism

wherever it is manifested. They declare that they are

for a solution of the Middle East conflict on the basis

of international resolutions and the respect of all the

peoples in this region.

"We consider their arrest and the tortures inflicted

on them as well as the denial of the right of visiting

and the withholding of information about the fate of

several of them as an act against all efforts to establish

a just peace in the region. Moreover, this is a violation

of the International Declaration of Human Rights.

"We urgently appeal to all those who believe in

justice and democracy. We request them to protest

against these arrests, to insist on the ending of tortures

and the immediate release of prisoners."

NATURE OF THE REPRESSION

The practices denounced in the preceding testimonies are not mere accidents as the succession of

different governments in Israel would like to be

believed, but are in keeping with the nature of the

state and its policy.

In fact, the Israeli state, which is envisaged as exclusively Jewish according to the Zionist ideology,

implies the rejection of the Palestinian people and

its explusion by force from its land.

The Zionist authorities have systematically tried

to destroy the Palestinian people physically, politically

and culturally. These practices (dynamiting houses,

deportations, collective punishments, etc..} clearly

reveal the colonial character of Israel. They were

used by the French and Portuguese colonialists and by

White Power in South Africa and Rhodesia. They

also unmask Israeli "democracy", a democracy which

the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations

described as: "A privilege enjoyed exclusively by the

colons and which is not open to everyone."

Palestinian held under administratiiv detention.
100

THE PRISONERS CONTINUE

THEIR STRUGGLE

In a report published in 1974, the Democratic

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DPFLP)

exposed the following facts:

The detained Palestinians have organized themselves

inside the prisons. They have grouped themselves

and were able to circulate two clandestine newspapers.

The Israelis use heinous methods of toriurr and lerror.

Of these methods, psychological torture is commonly

practiced. For example:

1. News broadcast transmitted by the Israeli stale

radio and translated into Arabic in order to demoralize

the prisoners.

2. Circulation of fabricated news concerning alledgedly unsuccessful resistance operations by Palestinians in which the protagonists are said to have been

killed.

3. Describing the Palestinian revolution as being

on the verge of defeat and announcing its forthcoming

liquidation.

The methods of physical torture most commonly

used are the following:

1. Arranging meetings between the prisoners and

attractive women for the purpose ofobtaining information. If they refuse, the prisoners are beaten on their

genitals and metal needles are introduced into these

organs for long periods. The two prisoners Mourad

Al-Bahi and Abdel Shahine are among those who

suffered such tortures.

2. Using electroshocks in all prisons.

3. Burning all parts of the body with lit cigarettes.

4. Slamming doors on fingers followed by beatings

with metal rulers.

5. Pulling out of nails previously squashed.

6. Using police dogs to attack and bite naked prisoners

until they faint.

7. Applying a paper solution on prisoners* wounds

which in the long run causes brain damage to brain

cells.

8. Hanging down prisoners by arms or legs for long

periods, a practice which can cause paralysis.

9. Blindfolding prisoners and forcing them to run

handcuffed on a road full of holes. When they fall

down, the prisoners are beaten and forced to get up

by the Israeli soldiers. This is done until they faint.

10. Throwing urine and feces at the face of prisoners

and sometimes urinating in their mouths.

11. Wounding prisoners and covering their wounds

with salt.

12. Placing prisoners in a cell and torturing them

with lights and loud sounds. As a result of these barbarous tortures, many prisoners are now invalids.

To cite some examples:

•Monayed Al-Bahich is paralyzed in the left arm.

-•Latifa El-Houry is half paralized

•Abdelaziz Shanine had his vertebral column broken

and was later executed.

•Ibrahim al-Najjar is disfigured and has lost both

eyes and his right arm.

•Walid al-Ramaki has a skull fracture.

•Wakim Nassar has a crushed chest and his back

broken

•Mohamed Dahmach has a skull fracture which

led to madness.

CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONS

The prisoners are distributed in prisons inside Israel

such as Askalan, Bir el-Sabeh, al-Ramleh, Beit Leif,

Kfar Yaine, Haifa, Akka, Sarafand and Shatta as

well as in the occupied territories: Nablus, Galilee,

Jenin, Gaza, Toulkarem and Khan-Younis.

THE RAMALLAH PRISON

The prison contains over 1000 prisoners and is reserved for those with life sentences. It is notorious for its

solitary cells. It has a special wing for women. The

prisoners are forced to make camouflage nets for the

Israeli army. This prison is also famous for its X-ray

torture chambers and for the solitary cells in which

the prisoners are placed while their wounds arc

healing.

BIR EL SABEH PRISON

This prison is situated in a desert region. It specializes

in hard labour,ironworks, carpentry and construction. At night, the Israeli soldiers throw grenades

and shoot to keep the prisoners terrorized.

ASKALAN PRISON

About 1000 prisoners are held in what was formerly

a military prison. The conditions of life there are

the hardest: it is impossible to sleep day or night.

It is extremely humid and never sees the sun. In this

prison, many prisoners have lost their health.
101

SHATTA PRISON

This prison holds about 500 prisoners and there are

eight solitary cells. It is a penitentiary. In order to

break the prisoners' morale and obtain information

from them before the trial, all prisoners are subjected

to long periods of physical torture which has caused

the death of Ibrahim al-Kaharouf and many others.

BEIT LEIF PRISON

This prison, about 10 kms. from Toulkarem, can

hold 300 prisoners. It is well defended and all deserting

officers are sent to it. It is forbidden to speak in the

cells which are very small and inadequately ventilated.

SARAFAND MILITARY PRISON

This prison is administered by the Military Intelligence Service and is composed only of solitary cells

and torture chambers.

AL DAMOUN PRISON

In this prison the prisoners are forced to work on

Zionist war projects. It also has a paper factory.

GAZA PRISON

This prison which can hold 1000 prisoners is considered the centre ofdistribution to other prisons. It is

reserved for those sentenced to more than five yean. It

is a three-story building and has six solitary cells and

twenty extremely humid cells.

NABLUS CENTRAL PRISON

There are more than 800 prisoners in this prison.

It acts as a centre for interrogations and regional

distribution.

AL NABI PRISON

This prison is famous for its solitary cells where the

most barbarous tortures are practiced.

NAFI TERSTA PRISON

This prison for women is divided into two parts, the

first, containing 28 cells is reserved for women who

have committed civil offences, the other, containing

21 cells, is reserved for women having committed

"crimes against the safety of the state."

Contributing to the Israeli war machine.
102

COMMUNAL CONCENTRATION CAMPS

The barbaric and inhuman practices of the state of

Israel are not limited to the torture of Palestinian

prisoners. Concentration camps are built in the

Sinai Desert in order to break the resistance of the

Palestinian people of Gaza. In thb desert, three main

concentration camps existed before 1971: Nakl, Abou

Zeinah and al-Kasima. In 1971, the monastery of

St. Catherine was transformed into a concentration

camp and other camps were built at al-Arish and Wadi

Moussa. The camps are made of tents in which one

or several families are crammed with simply a curtain

acting as a separation. They are completely isolated

from the rest of the world: no newspapers, no books,

no radios and no visits.

In addition to the concentration camps, the Israeli

army has under its control extensive regions in the Gaza

Strip which are surrounded by barbed wire. Nobody

is allowed to enter or leave these regions without

permission from the military authorities.

There are three concentration camps in the Rafah

region:

•The camp of Own Kalab north of Rafah. The

number of inmates is estimated at 2000.

•The camp of Biouk, north of Rafah, 3500 inmates.

•The camp of Masrouk, east of Rafah, 1500 inmates.

The decision to build the concentration camps

was taken at the highest military and political levels.

The control of the camps has been given to a special

army unit under the command of General Shlomo

Gazit, Assistant Director of Military Intelligence,

and former Military Governor of Gaza.
103

SOLE ASPECTS OF THE ISRAELI ANNEXATIONIBT POLICY AS PRACTICED IN JERUSALEM :

"A CASE STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES"

(By 1 brahum Dakkak)

INTRODUCTION

The Israeli decision on the 14-th of August 1977 to equalize the services in the

West Bank and Gaza Strip with that of Israel came as a logical outcome to the

designs of the Likud Government headed by Menahem Begin. The statement'

of the secretary of the Israeli Government on the eve of that decision left no

room for doubt that the Begin Government had committed itself to the total annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Israel.

The equalization process might take some time to implement fully, but the ultimate goal could well be seen set and on the move. This is all reminiscent of two

historical events. The first was the occupation of the Holy Land by the Crusaders

in the 11th century. The second was the annexation of Jerusalem by Israel on

28 June 1967. In both cases the goal was the land and no respect or care were

given to the future of the Arabs living on it. Endeavors to get rid of the inhabitants

in both cases were made. The Crusaders resorted to massacres, the Israelis resorted to other means.

It is unlikely that we can draw a mechanical comparison between the two

events. But it is worthwhile noting that these two historical events took place at

a time when the prevailing social and economic systems were suffering from a

decaying process. Both the Crusaders and the Zionists resorted to religion as a

cover which fixed their direction towards Palestine. The sufferings as a result

to these two pursuits were the lot of the Palestinian Arabs.

The equalization policy was first spoken of in the declaration of the Israeli

foreign Ministry on 28 June 1967 (Annexation day). The spokesman stated that

"the basic purpose of the ordinance2was to provide full municipal and social

services to all inhabitants of Jerusalem. They would enjoy complete equality in

respect of services, welfare and education." a The Thalmann report published by

the Secretary General of the United Nations on 12 September 1967 stated that

the declared objective of the Israeli Government was to equalize the legal and

administrative status of residents of these parts of the city which were not previously controlled by Israel with that of Israel's Citizens.* Therefore the notion

of equalization of services dates back to June 1967. It had constituted a prelude

to the annexation of Jerusalem at that time.

For some time "the Israeli Government assumed an ambiguous position. Outwardly, it stressed that the step taken did not constitute annexation, while for

internal consumption it emphasized that annexation was full and complete. The

effect of the Government legislation however, was not in the least ambiguous.

The law of annexation clearly applied Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to the annexed area." *

In the light of this policy it is fair enough to consider the Israeli equalization

decision issued on 14 August 1977 as a prelude to the total annexation of the We.st

Bank and Gaza Strip.

It is logical as well to assume that the Israeli authorities will make use of

their ten years previous experience gained in the Jerusalem annexation process.

Thus a study of the Arab plight in Jerusalem in the last ten years will shed

some light on the projected conditions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The

study intends to clarify some aspects of the Israeli practices in Jerusalem

during and after annexation on one hand, and the means to counteract the

grave consequences resulting from the application of this policy on the Arabs

in the occupied areas on the other hand.

1 The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 15, 1977. Mr. Noar stated that one would not annex what

he owns.

• The administrative order Issued by the Israeli Minister of the Interior, H. M. Shaplra,

enlarging the area of the Israeli Jerusalem Municipality on June 28, 1967. That was

preceded by three laws: one on the protection of the Holy Places ; the second to apply

Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to areas formerly part of mandatory Palestine

and designated for this purpose by the Government; the third to enlarge the area of any

municipality by administrative order.

• The Shlloah Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel-Aviv University, Middle East Record 1967, Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, 1971, p. 290.

• Ibid p. 292. 6 Benvenlsti, Meron; "Jerusalem, the Torn City ;" Isratypest Ltd. Jerusalem 1976; pp.

110-11.
104

THE JEBU6ALEM CASE STUDY

The need of the Israelis to annex Jerusalem stems from their endeavor to

justify the religious Biblical vision which frames the Zionist ideology; and

the costly fight against the Arabs in Palestine. In fact, it is prompted by the

desire of the Israeli leadership to divert the attention of the Israelis from

their daily social plight to chauvinistic goals and means.

The controversy between the Jews and the Arabs, which took its novel form

in the Jerusalem problem, has long abandoned the ideological confrontation for

actual conflict. The relationship between the Arabs in Jerusalem and the Israeli administration can hardly be other than antagonistic.

The Arabs of Jerusalem justly think that they have the full right to see the

future of Jerusalem in an Arab perspective. They are justified as well in their

refusal to see it through an Israeli eye. This Arab attitude has kept Jerusalem

demographically, socially and even geographically divided in spite of all the

Israeli measures to unify it."

The Arabs, in their defence of their identity, the Arab character of the City,

their property, their Holy Places and their culture are at loggerheads with the

Israeli authorities. Their plight is humanly unparalleled today. They have

developed the feeling that their challenge is human and universal in a messianic

way. They believe rightly that it is the duty of humanity to rise to their defence.

After the issuing of all the laws and regulations to annex Jerusalem the

Israeli authorities turned to the practical issue; the Judaization of the City.

The first step was to set up commissions to draw the new Jerusalem planning

scheme. In 1968 the Prime Minister Mr. Eshkol declared that "the historical

rights of the People of Israel would have to be taken into account, and that

Israel would on the other hand, be unable to ignore the concentration of Arab

population in certain areas".7

The official planning scheme for Jerusalem was not known when its blessings

showed up very quickly in the form of land expropriation in the New and Old

City of Jerusalem. The steps which followed explained the general characteristics of the planning scheme to be applied in the City. Some aspects of these

characteristics were conveyed to the public through the local Press, other

publication and building activities. The following points explain the general

aims of the scheme:

1. The Israeli expropriation of 116 dunams in the Old City of Jerusalem.8The

plan called for the expulsion of 10,000 Arabs • under the pretext of congestion and

bad housing conditions.10 At the same time they planned to accommodate 5,000

Jews in the extended Jewish Quarter.

2. The wiping out of the Arab Moghrabi Quarter adjacent to the Wailing Wall.

3. The Arab Areas outside the City wall were classified into three categories :

u

(a) Archeological sites where building was not allowed.

(6) Green Areas where no construction was allowed.

(c) Special areas subject to special regulations which limit building

activity.

Most of the land left outside these zones was expropriated. This expropriated

land exceeded 20,000 dunams uused completely for the building of new Jewish

neighborhoods and satellites :

u

1. Ramat Eshkol: (600 dunams, 2,200 dwellings, services).

2. Maalot Dafna (270 dunams, 1,400dwellings, services).

« Dakkak, Ibrahim ; "Al Kuds Wa A'Shru Sanawat Min Al Mu'Anah" ; Al-Kuds, June 1977

(Arabic). 7

Schul, Zee'v ; "The Meaning of the New Map" ; The Jerusalem Post Magazine, June 26,

1968; p. 6. 8 The No. of Arabs per dunam In the Old City is 140 while No. of Jews per dunam Is 36.

* Mr. Kollek, the Israel Mayor of Jerusalem, mentioned during the discussion In the

meeting of the Jerusalem Committee that the need stands to minimize the density of the

Arabs In the Old City where the occupancy reaches to 10 persons per room (ef; the Jerusalem Committee proceedings II, 1973, p. 37). The 10,000 figure was suggested by the Jerusalem planning team (Of. Sharon Arien ; "Planning Jerusalem the Old City and Its Environs" ; Weldenfeld and Nlcolson ; Jerusalem 1973 p. 117). 10 Sharon, Arieh ; op. clt; p. 117.

«Ibid.

» Dakkak, Ibrahim ; Ta'Atheer Al-Ihtilal Al-Israell A'La AMskan Al-Arabl Fl Al-Kuds ;

A paper submitted to the Housing Symposium In Amman In Apr. 1977 (Mimeographed)

p. 6 (Arabic).

"Kroyanker, David; "Developing Jerusalem 1967-1975"; Jerusalem Foundation and

David Kroyanker 1975 ; pp. 191-202.
105

a Ramot (2,500 dunams, 8,000 dwellings, 35,000 Inhabitants).

4. Neve Yacoub (820 dunams, 4,000 dwellings, 17,000 inhabitants).

5. Gilo (10,000 dwellings, 35,000 inhabitants).

6. East Talpiot (2,700 dunams, 5,000 dwellings, 15,000 inhabitants).

The future plans for the rest of the Arab land in the area of Jerusalem and its

environs are not yet officially revealed. But information leaked in the local Press

reveals the following:

1. 70,000 dunams to the east of Jerusalem were announced to be restricted areas

by military order. On this land the Maale Adumim (Al-Khan Al-Ahmar) center

was established."

2. New Jewish settlements were suggested by the planner Shaked, to be built

around the City of Jerusalem. Three of these settlements and four villages are

suggested to accommodate (75,000-150,000) inhabitants, and five satellites are to

accommodate 25,000 inhabitants. The location for these settlements is suggested

to be to the north and north west of Ramallah " and at Al-Khan Al-Ahmar mentioned before.

3. Other settlements are suggested also to the north west of Ramallah, and in

the Ras to the north and north west of Beit Jala."

4. A 10,000 dwellings scheme between Neve Yacoub and French Hill is under

consideration.

5. It was reported that another 10,000 dwellings, are to be built between Ramot

(Nabi Samuel) and Neve Yacoub by the year 1982".

6. By the end of the decade there should be close to 40,000 Jewish families living beyond the former armistice line.18

The aim of this pursuit is to keep the Arab population in Jerusalem within a

one third minority limit".

This policy was maintained, and the execution of it was facilitated by the

'open bridge' policy. This policy acted as release value for the jobless and the

homeless and effectively decreased the resistance of the population to these

Israeli designs.

The one third to two thirds policy Mlogically called for the same percentage

of constructional activity for both groups, but this was never followed by the

Israeli administration.

The Israeli plan called for the building of 68,000 extra rooms for the Arabs

by the year 1985 and 250,000 for the Jews based on an occupancy rate of 1.2 persons/room for the Jews and 1.6 persons/room for the Arabs a

.

If the 68,000 rooms are converted to housing units that should have been built

up until 1976 the number should have been 7,400 units. During the same period

only 1,000 residential units were established either in the form of simple units

or as extensive additions to existing housing ". In other words the Arab housing

programme as envisaged by the planning authority lagged by more than 6,000

units.

On the other hand it is a well known fact in Jerusalem that many residential

units in the Jewish neighborhoods built on expropriated Arab land find no Jews

to occupy them. These were left to accommodate potential new-comers.

The Israeli drive towards giving Jerusalem a dominant Jewish character

touched extra sensitive points, namely the Haram Al-Sharif.

The problem of the property of this Holy Sanctuary was given prominence

upon the challenge of the Israelis to the Muslim authority. The Moslems from

the beginning of the Zionist movement have been deeply suspicious of Jewish

intentions. They always feared that the Jews ultimately aimed at the seizure of

Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the destruction of the Islamic Sanctuaries. Although

" Dakkak. Ibrahim ; op. cit; app. No. 5.

"> Ash-Sha'Ab Daily Newspaper, Dec. 9,1975.

M Ibid. 17 Kabinovich, Abraham ; "On Building a Fortress Around Jerusalem"; Jerusalem Post

Magazine ; Nov. 8,1974.

>

8

Ibid. 19 Kroyanker, David ; op. cit; p. 20. 20 Professor N. Lichfield, The then Chief Planner in the Jerusalem Municipality declared

in his comments in the discussions of the Jerusalem Committee that this proportion was

disputed by the Prime Minister of Israel. (Cf. Jerusalem Committee proceedings II, 1973 ;

p. 53) 21 The Jerusalem Master Plan Bureau, "The Master Plan 1968" ; interim report, condensed from table 3, p. a 0. 22 Kroyanker, David ; op. cit; p. 44.
106

this was denied by the Zionist and the Israelis time and again, there were Jewish

writers, scholars and visionaries who gave substance to such suspicions a.

Moreover, in June 1967, within hours of the conquest of the Old City, the Chief

Rabbi of the Israeli army, Brigadier Goren, with some of his followers entered

the Area and conducted Jewish prayers (in the Haram . . . and a few weeks

later he suggested erecting a synagogue on the Esplanade of Al-Aksa Mosque. In

addition, on 17 August 1969, four days before the fire in the Aksa Mosque, a group

of the Jewish National Youth-Betar uagainst the protests of the Muslim officials

held a ceremonial parade in the precincts near the Dome of the Rock, where their

leader in his address complained that the Temple Mount was still "held by Aliens"

and called for the rebuilding of a third Temple.26

Moreover, in September 1967, the Defense Minister confiscated the keys of the

Moghrabi Gate thus depriving the Muslims of their long established right to sole

control of the entrances and areas of the Haram Al-Sharif. This reflected a deep

concern and suspicion that the Haram could be desecrated and probably subjected to sinister designs. This feeling was further reinforced by the burning of

Al-Aksa Mosque on 21 August 1969.

Although the authorities were able to prove that the gutting was made by a

Christian from Australia Mand not by a Jew, the investigation set up by the Muslim Council shed doubt on the official claim. The Committee which was composed of

engineers reported that the fire started in more than one locality at the same time,

which implied that more than one person was involved.

The appeal of thirteen Jews on 13 April 1969, four months before the fire in the

Mosque, to the High Court of Justice for an order nisi against the Minister of

Police27 was considered a prelude to the Israeli designs against the Al-Haram

Al-Sharif. The order nisi asked the Minister to give cause why he should not

ensure that suitable protection be given by the Israeli Police, to prevent the applicants' prayer from being disturbed . . . and to show reason why instruction

should not be given to Israeli Police personnel to refrain from interfering with

the applicants' prayer.28

The rejection of the High Court to the request was based on the remarks of the

Attorney General which agreed, inter alia, with the views expressed by the Minister of Religious Affairs in the Knesset which stated that "there is nothing in

the law which forbids a minyan (a gathering of ten Jews) from visiting the Temple Mount and praying there", he added, "however the implementation of this

right depends on the maintenance of public order, and this was within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Police " ". The Attorney General, on his part, assessed

the problem as political and not judicial "*.

The decision taken by these Israeli Officers practically legalized the Jewish

claim to the property of the Haram Al-Sharif and the right of the Jews to pray

on it in contravention of the status quo agreement on the Holy Places issued

in 1930. The Minister of Religious Affairs stressed this fact in a press interview by saying that the Temple Mount (Al-Haram Al-Sharif) and the Tomb

of the Patriarchs in Hebron (the Ibrahimi Mosque) are Jewish property because they were purchased with blood and money.31

The question arises as to what are the prospects for the property of the Haram

and the rights of the Muslims?

The answer could best be found in the permission granted for the Jews to use

the Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron in the form of a fait accomplis and in the enforcement of a modus vivindi in the situation. It is highly probable in the light of

this experience and the statement of the Minister for Religious Affairs mentioned above that a similar situation may be forced on the Haram in Jerusalem

as a prelude to the total control. This is reminiscent of the Crusaders' action in

converting the Dome of the Rock into the Church of Templum Domini and the

Aksa Mosque to Templum Solomonis. However, the consequences of such action

remain to be known in the event of these suspicions materializing.

23 Zanler, Walter, "Israel and the Holy Places of Chrlstiandon" ; Weldenfeld and NlcolBon. London 1971; p. 2. 24 The youth organization of the Herat Party headed by Menahem Begin. 25 Jerusalem Post, Aug. 18,1969. Quoted by Zander, Walter op. cit; p. 2.

M Rohan. 27 Benvenistl, Meron ; op. clt; p. 293. 28 Ibid ; pp. 293-294.

» Ibid.

" Ibid.

" Ibid; pp. 288-89.
107

The application of the Israeli law in Jerusalem brought more problems to the

Jerusalem Arabs. "The officials of the Israeli Ministery of Religious Affairs

wanted to impose all the Israeli laws and procedures on the Sharia (Religious)

legal system of East Jerusalem. The Ministry . . . also wanted to take over control of the Waqf (Muslim endowment) property32". The Israelis considered that

the Sharia in Israel was not identical with the one applied in Jordan. Besides

the Qadis (Judges) did not renounce their Jordanian citizenship and did not

swear allegiance to the President of Israel. The reaction of the Muslim leadership came in the form of a Fatwa33 which objected to the Israeli interference

in Muslim religious affairs. The Fatwa stated, inter alia, "since the principle of

Islamic law require Muslims to take upon themselves, under conditions such

as those now reigning, all responsibility for matters of their religion, it is prohibited for non-Musliums to be in-charge in Muslim religious affairs."

The Fatwa, as such, gave the Islamic legal background to resist the Israeli

interference in Islamic affairs. It also gave spirit for all those who cared to

resist the annexation of Jerusalem and general occupation on political grounds.

Depending on this Fatwa the Sharia Courts work now independently of the

Israeli authorities and on the willingness of the people to accept its rulings.

The Israelis stopped at no limit to force their will and to create conditions

suitable for their purposes. One of their activities which caused concern to the

Arabs and the world at large was the archeological excavations conducted

around Al-Haram Al-Sharif. Two digs were started. One was under the supervision of Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The otheJ

one was sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs.

The mazar dig started in 1968 and is still in progress today. It covers the

area to the south and south west of the Haram Al-Sharif.

The Ministry of Religious Affairs dig took the form of tunnelling under

Islamic buildings of great historical value and was supervised by Rabbi Perla,

who lacked knowledge and interest in the value of the area on top of the tunnel. All he cared for was to expose the Herodian wall underneath.

Although less incompetent than the dig of the Ministry of Religious Affairs,

the Mazar dig nevertheless constituted an eminent danger to the future of the

Haram Al-Sharif and the area surrounding it. Chief Rabbi Nissim in a memorandum to the Ministerial Committee for the Holy Places approved that the four

walls of Al-Haram area are sanctified and that praying at the wall is the main

thing, and everything else is incidental. He asked that all the length of the western wall of the Haram be cleared of all the buildings adjacent to it and that it be

made available for worship.34

It is feared that this attitude of the Religious authority reinforced by the

finds of the dig from the Herodian period would turn the whole area surrounding the Haram into a Jewish praying area. The ultimate result of such a policy

is that it would turn the Islamic historical area and the Haram in particular

into a Jewish domain.

The tunnelling conducted by the Ministry of Religious Affairs was visited

many times by the author in his capacity as the engineer in charge of the restoration of the Aksa Mosque. It is 2-3 meters wide dug through the soil

bearing the foundation of the Islamic historical buildings on top of it. One side

of it exposes the Herodian wall, the other side and the ceiling were supported

by timber for some time.

The meager supervision by the Ministry of Religious Affairs of this dig is a

cause for more suspicion and worry for the Muslims, especially if we consider the

influence held by the Chief Rabbis over this Ministry and its personnel.

The suspicions harboured by all concerned proved correct when cracks

started to appear in the historical buildings. A summary of these incidents is

given here:

1. The Ribat Kurd (Hospice of the Amir Kurd, was founded by Al-Maqarr AlSayfi Kurd. Sahib Al-Diyar Mi«ryya in the year 693/1293-4* "The Ribat partially collapsed in December 1971 as a result of extensive tunnelling by Israel's

Ministry of Religious Affairs . . . almost at once the damaged hospice became

a focus of world wide attention, since the Ministry of Religious Affairs hoped

" IMd : p. 283. 83 Fatwa In Arabic means a Binding Religious Opinion. 34 Benvenisti. Meron : op. cit; p. 314.

»Hanbali. Mujlr-Ul-Din ; "Al-Uns Al-Jalil Bi Tarikh Al-Kuds Wa Al-Khalil"; 2 vol. ; Muhtasib, 2d vol. p. 37 (Arabic) 1973.
108

to exploit the situation by demolishing the precarious structure, and its neighbours, to create a second wailing wall 'piazza', this one in the heart of the

Muslim Quarter. Opposition to this plan prevented any immediate action and

makeshift supports were erected to prevent further collapse until a decision was

taken."8° This opposition came from the Muslim Council in Jerusalem, Dame

Kathleen Kenyon" and many other concerned bodies. Mr. Benvenisti, the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem describes the incident as follows:

"The excavation of the Ministry of Reigious Affairs reached the critical

period in December 1971 and the Ministry requested approval for the demolition of an ancient ramshackle building38 that blocked the extension of

the tunnel." "

2. Al-Madrasa Al-Jawhariya (Al-Jawhariya School).40 It was built by Emir

Safiy Al-Din Jawhar in the year 844/1440. The school is adjacent to Ribat Kurd

on the northern side of Bab Al-Hadid street. It stands on top of the aforementioned tunnel. Serious cracks were reported by the author on March 10, 1974.

The Israeli authorities agreed to support it and reinforce it. But the result

was disapopinting.

3. Al-Madrasa Al-Othmaniyya founded by Isfahan Shah Khatoun, daughter

of Mahmud Al Uthmani in the year 840/1437.*1 The Resident Engineer of the

Aksa Mosque reported the collapse of the interior vestibule on Friday December

19, 1975." His evaluation of the cause of the collapse was that the extensive

tunnelling conducted under the school by the Ministry of Religious Affairs was

responsible. These activities gave signs of collapse four years before. The Israeli

authorities were notified but no response was made. The Engineer considered

that the Uthmaniyya and all buildings lining on top of the tunnel stand on

virtually no foundation. Any vertical or lateral displacement, therefore, would

result in serious damage to this historical building.

The Area under which this irresponsible activity takes place is the richest in.

Mamluk buildings in the world outside Cairo and Damascus.

World opinion in general and UNESCO in particular condemned this Israeli

activity many times. In Paris in 1974 and in Nairobi in 1976 Israel faced punitive measures from UNESCO.

THE WEST BANK AND GAZA STRIP

The case study of Jerusalem under Israeli administration as summarized in

the previous section is meant to shed some light on the detrimental consequences

of the potential annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Israel in one

way or another.

It was mentioned before that the equalization of services philosophy dates

back to 1967. At that time it was meant as a first step towards the annexation

of Jerusalem. In the case of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip one can trace

that philosophy to two important decisions taken on two different dates, namely :

the decision to consider the Al'lenby Bridge and the Damia Bridge *

3

on the River

Jordan as official points of entrance to Israel, and the other was to change the

status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from occupied areas to administered

territories. The direct objective was to establish new facts to facilitate the future annexation of these areas.

Annexation might take different meanings in different circumstances. But

the Israeli trend is to create a dominion able to serve the purposes of the religious groups, economic pressure groups and military and security services.

The options open to Israel to apply this form of hegemony were few. Total

unification was criticized by some Israelis for fear of the enormous potential

increase in the percentage of Arabs in Israel. The idea in principle was generally

accepted provided that the Arabs be got rid of by means of economic, social and

»Borgoyne, H. M. ; "The Continued Survey of the Rlbat Kurd Madrasa Jawlariyya Complex in Tariq Bab Al-Hadid•Jerusalem", Levant VI, the British School of Archeology,

Jerusalem. 1974 ; p. 51. ••__

•» The Times•London Aug. 17, 1972. See also Jerusalem Post Aug. 18, 1972.

«• Ribat Kurd Building.

• Benvenisti, Meron : op. cit: p. 320. 40 The Aksa Mosque Restoration Committee Archives. Letters No. MM/8/69/47, 107, 216

dated Mar. 10, 1974. May 25, 1974 and Oct. 1, 1974 respectively.

« Hanbali, Mujir-Ul-Din ; op. cit; p. 37. •.,.••• ** The Aksa Mosque Restoration Committee Archives, Letter No. 510/281 dated Dec. 20,

1975. 43 Both bridges fall on the cease fire line with Jordan.
109

political pressures and emigration to Arab countries. But the mass exodus of

these inhabitants under these conditions might create political and legal pressures

that Israel could not face."

vol. XI, No. 39 ; Cairo ; p. 45.

Another choice voiced by the Allon Plan and by the mass media suggested a

dual Israeli/Jordanian hegemony allowing the inhabitants to retain their Jordanian citizenship under a Jordanian civil administration and at the same

time to allow Israeli political, economic and military dominance.

A third option was to grant the local Palestinians civil administration under

the protection of Israel.

All three options were refused by the Palestinians in these areas because they

could not meet their minimum aspirations of free self-determination and the

termination of occupation.

The Israelis in their determination to create of the occupied territories an

Israeli "Lebenraum" found no way to achieve this objective except by denying

the Palestinians their rights.

One should remember that the 1967 war added more than one million aconsumers to the Israeli market as well as cheap labour for its industry and

agriculture. The Israeli authorities, making use of the low productivity of Arab

agriculture, attracted tens of thousands of farmers and peasants to work in

Israel expecting to neutralize their opposition to occupation and to minimize

their care for the land and to encourage them to abandon it" thereby creating

a floating labour force which has no commitment to the land, and opening the

way at the same time, for more Jewish settlement in the abandoned areas.

The need of the Israelis to annex Jerusalem stems from religious and ideological considerations as well as pragmatic ones. It was an imperative prelude to

the annexation of the whole area. It served as a test case for public opinion,

bureaucratic procedures and political manipulations. The need of the Israelis to

annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip is greater in terms of geopolitics and

economy.

The "Sharon Plan" has defined that need in explicit terms which superseded

any previous declaration including the Galilee Document (1973) and the Allon

Plan (1972). In his speech on the Golan Heights Mr. Sharon, the Minister of

Agriculture and the chairman of the Ministerial Committee for Settlement, said

that Israel must take on a twenty year programme to settle two million Jews on

the coastal plain from the Golan Heights in the north to Sharm El-Sheikh in the

south.47 The aim of that plan is three fold :

1. Thickening the area of Jewish settlements in the Jerusalem Corridor.

2. Establishing a complex of settlements in the area stretching west to a line

between Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah :

3. Planning a network of roads at the center of Israel from the sea in the

west to the Jordan valley in the east.48

Senator ABOUREZK. Our final witness is Mr. Fouzi Al-Asmar, who is

a poet and an Israeli citizen of Palestinian-Arab origin. He is also

editor of Miftah, which is a bilingual publishing house in Israel.

TESTIMONY OF FOUZI AL-ASMAR, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, AND

EDITOR

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify

before this subcommittee. I am a Palestinian Arab and a citizen of

the State of Israel. I am here to testify before this subcommittee today

in my capacity as a journalist, author and editor of Miftah, a bilingual•Arabic, Hebrew•publishing house in Israel.

I wish to submit to this subcommittee that the policies which are

being used by the Israeli authorities with regard to the local popula-

" Amad, Adna : "Al-Hukuk-Al Mughtasaba Lillnsan Al-FiUstini" Assiasah Addawllyeh, 45 In other words the consumption increased by more than 30 percent.

u

Barghuti, Bashir; "Attabaka Al-Amlla Wa Attahalufat Assiyasieh," Salahnddln, Jerusalem, 1977 ; p. 27 (Arabic).

«' Ma'Arive : September 1977.

« Ibid.

9ft-AAR fl - 7B •
110

tion in the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the

Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula which have been under Israeli

military occupation since the 1967 war, are in essence similar to those

which have been used by the same authorities against the so-called

"Israeli Arabs" since 1948.

In fact, the nature of the treatment of the Palestinian Arab population in the occupied territories as it has been indicated through previous testimonies before this subcommittee, for example, Prof. Israel

Shahak, is no different from that suffered by the Palestinian Arab

population under Israeli rule since 1948.

In order to learn this nature it would be instructive to examine the

way in which Israeli Arabs have been treated throughout the years.

I propose in this testimony to examine two aspects of this treatment:

First, the violations of the right of free social, cultural, and political

association; and second, the use of the defense•emergency•regulations of 1945.

Contrary to the testimony of Prof. Yehuda Zvi Blum, who testified

before this subcommittee on October 17, 1977, I wish to suggest that

Arabs in Israel are not free to form their own political, social, or cultural associations.

Legally, indeed, Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens are allowed to form such associations. It should be indicated at this point

that not every Arab in the state is an Israeli citizen. Arabs, unlike

Jews, even if born in the State of Israel, do not receive citizenship

automatically, but rather have to apply for it. Jews, on the other hand,

receive Israeli citizenship by virtue of immigration on the basis of

the law of return. In reality, however, any formation of independent

Arab political or social association is not allowed, unless it is affiliated with a Jewish or Zionist association, for example, Arab members

of the Israeli Parliament.

Senator ABOUREZK. Let me interrupt rightthere.

I asked Professor Blum yesterday if Arabs are entitled to form their

own political parties and he said yes. Is that true or not true ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. It is not true if we look at it from the way thatthey

are arranging these kinds of parties. As I said just now, these parties

should be affiliated to a Zionist or to a Jewish party.

But they will not allow•although it is legal to let us form an independent Arab party. Here I want to indicate the independent Arab

party. I want to also mention that Mr. Blum yesterday•I was here

in the hearing•used the word "list"•Arab list, and not "parties."

The way that the election is taking place in Israel is this. The party

will elect the first, second, third and so on persons on the list. These

Arab parties that he mentioned yesterday are affiliated with the Mapi,

that is, the labor party. They will elect the person and classify his

place on the list according to his reliability to the Mapi party. They

will put the person in the first or second place.

We do not have any independent Arab party that we can choose the

people who will be presented or representing us.

Senator ABOUREZK. SO, in fact, what he said yesterday is not true;

is that right?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. It is not true. There is no independent Arab party,

but there are Arabs listed saying they are running and they are affiliated with the Zionists.
Ill

To illustrate this point, I shall refer to the case of the al-Ard•the

land•movement, the latest of seven attempts to form independent

Arab parties since the establishment of the State of Israel.

Al-Ard movement, of which I was a founding member, was first

organized during the late 1950's. It was made up of Palestinian Arabs

and aimed at dealing with various social and political problems and

grievances faced by the Arab community in the country.

After much harassment by the authorities of the leading members

of the movement, for example, internal exile, restriction of movement, the movement was finally outlawed in 1965.

A more recent example of not allowing Palestinian Arabs in Israel

to form their own social and political associations is the case of the

Arab students in the country. Despite the fact that the Arab students

in the six universities in the country have organized themselves in

order to deal with their special problems which they are facing as

Arabs, members of a national minority, in predominantly Jewish universities, the authorities at the universities and the Ministry of Education of the State of Israel refuse to recognize these committees and

their national Committee of Arab Students, and refuse to deal with

them.

This lack of recognition results in very real obstacles which are

placed before the Arab students by the authorities. For instance, when

the Arab students wish to hold cultural or intellectual events on

campus, no room is provided for them for such purposes, while Jewish

students do enjoy this privilege.

One should only imgine not allowing Jewish students in American

universities to hold Jewish cultural events using university facilities

in order to appreciate the outcry about such discrimination and lack

of freedom of association. Cases such as these are widely reported in

the Hebrew press in Israel.

As to the use of the defense•emergency•regulations, I am pleased

by the fact that even Dr. Blum indicated his dislike of this set of

laws. These laws were enacted in 1945 by the British Mandatory Government and were used at the time against both Jews and Arabs.

As a result, at the February 7, 1946, conference of the Lawyers'

Association in Tel-Aviv•these are Jewish lawyers•in a collective

attack on the regulations, the late Mr. Dov Yosef, later a minister in

the Israeli Government stated: "With regard to the security regulations the question is: Will we all be subject to official terrorism?"

And at the same meeting Mr. Ya'akov Shimshon Shapirah, who

later became Israel's Minister of Justice, proclaimed: "The regime

built in Palestine on the defense regulation has no parallel in any

civilized nation. Even in Nazi Germany there were no such laws. * * *

It is our duty to tell the whole world that the defense regulations

passed by the government in Palestine destroy the very foundations

of justice in this land." This appeared in Ha*praklit, February 1946,

pages 58 to 64.

These regulations provide the Israel authorities with the legal tool

of administratively detaining people without official charges and without trials; restricting the movement of individuals; exiling people

within the country and out of it; house arresting; collective punishments; destruction of houses; and confiscation of lands. These lands,
112

incidentally, are considered by the authorities as redeemed lands. Their

legal possession is, in most cases, transferred to the Jewish National

Fund; thus legally, non-Jews, that is Palestinian Arabs, are not allowed to buy or lease these lands which are reserved for use exclusively

by Jews.

In fact, both I and my family have been direct victims of these regulations. My family's land was confiscated on the basis of these regulations; and I was detained for 15 months, and was house arrested for

an additional 12 months without ever being charged of any wrongdoing and without ever being tried.

In summary, the grave violations of human and civil rights of the

Palestinian Arab population in the occupied territories are by no means

unique to these areas alone. They have been, and still are being used

against Palestinian Arabs within pre-1967 Israel boundaries.

They, in my view, are an integral part of the Zionist colonial nature

of the State of Israel, within which context they must be examined.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you.

What were the circumstances of your own imprisonment ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. At that time they came early in the morning•3

o'clock in the morning. They searched my house. They took me with

them saying that I was suspect and that I had a relationship with the

enemy. They specified that it was with the popular front.

My answer was "OK. If you have evidence and you are claiming that

I am living in a democratic state, then I am ready to go to court and

accept what the court will say."

Later on they said that I belonged to Fatah, but they never took

me to court and they never presented evidence even to me to say why

they were arresting me.

In fact, I was arrested 3 weeks after my first book was published

which had passed heavy censorship. I was asked about my poetry and

about my writing. I think that is the main reason for putting me in

jail for 15 months without charge.

Senator ABOUREZK. Was the book one of poetry ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. A book of poetry, yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Did you criticize the Israel Government in it?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Most of my poems are political poems. I usually

write about our life and about our suffering. In fact, the book was censored. I sent it to the censor and they canceled some poems and some

lines from poems and even one word from a poem.

After finally agreeing that I would publish it, then I published it.

But later I was also asked about the book.

Senator ABOUREZK. A book of poetry was censored ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. HOW does that square with the statement by

Professor Blum yesterday that Israel is the only democracy in the

Middle East?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. That is his own problem.

Senator ABOUREZK. That is his own problem ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Yes, it is his own problem.

It may be a democratic state for Jews, after which I also put a big

question mark. But I cannot say that Israel is a real democratic state.
113

Senator ABOUREZK. IS censorship exerted against Arabs and Jews or

just Arabs?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. There are two kinds of military censorship. One

belongs to any articles that are going to be published in any language

in Israel.

Butthere is another kind of censorship which belongs to the creation

of the Arab writers in Israel. For example, a Jewish poet will not submit his poetry to the censorship; but, at least at that time, we were

not allowed to publish anything without submitting it to the censor,

even if the poem was already published in a journal or newspaper and

passed the censor before. If you want to put it in a collection, then you

have to resubmit it again.

From my own experience I have some poems that I published in

newspapers. They did not allow me to publish them in a book.

Senator ABOUREZK. YOU were in prison for 15 months without

charge ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. After that you were released and put under

house arrest for 12 months ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Without charge ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. In what year were you first arrested ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. I was arrested in 1969.

Senator ABOUREZK. YOU were released when ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. November 1970. And from November 1970 I was

under house arrest until November 1971.

Senator ABOUREZK. How soon after that did you come to the United

States?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. I came to the United States at the end of March

1972. I was invited to come over and give a lecture tour about the

Arabs in Israel.

Senator ABOUREZK. Did you return to Israel or have you been here

since then ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. I returned last year and I have been there a month

ago to attend my father's funeral.

Senator ABOUREZK. Are you living in the United States now ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. NOW I am here. I am working on my Ph. D.

Senator ABOUREZK. DO you plan to return to Israel ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. I will return to my fatherland because I belong

there.

Senator ABOUREZK. AS soon as you finish your Ph. D. ?

Mr. AL-ASMAR. I hope so.

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, I have no more questions. I want to express my thanks to you for your testimony and your contribution.

We have yet to hear from the administration witnesses.

The hearings will be in recess, subjectto the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

APPENDIX

GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION or CIVILIAN PERSONS

IN TIME OF WAR

August 12, 1949

ARTICLE 49

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.

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.

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.

The protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations

as soon as they have taken place.

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.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian

population into the territory it occupies.

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED L. ATHERTON, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

THE NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

Chairmen Fraser and Hamilton, members of the subcommittees, I am here to

respond to your request for the State Department's views on the subject of

Israel's settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war. With your request,

you forwarded a number of questions dealing with the legal, political and

factual aspects of this subject. In this statement. I will review briefly the legal

and politica' considerations that form the basis of our policy and touch on

those questions relating to the relationship of the settlements to the future

status of the occupied territories. Following my statement, I am at the Subcommittees' disposal to answer today, or subsequently in writing for the record, your

questions on these and other aspects of this subject.

THE U.S. POSITION

The U.S. position on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has been

consistent since this subject first became an issue in 1968.

There are two elements to our position :

First, we have viewed those settlements as an obstacle to peace because their

establishment could be perceived as prejudging the outcome of negotiations

dealing with the territorial aspects of final peace treaties.

(115)
116

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 establishes

the principles that peace must be based on withdrawal by Israeli armed forces

from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict and the termination of all claims

or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty,

territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and

their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from

threats or acts of force. In brief, Resolution 242 envisages Israel relinquishinent

of occupied territories in return for Arab agreement to recognize Israel's right

to exist and to live in peace with it.

The Arabs perceive Israel's settlements in the occupied territories as indicating

that Israel intends to retain permanent control in the areas where the settlements are located and therefore as prejudging agreement in the negotiations on

the location of the final secure and recognized boundaries called for in Resolution 242. The Israeli Government has taken the position that all issues are

negotiable and that the settlements will not be an obstacle to negotiations and

peace. In our view, however, once settlements are established, they inevitably

create psychological and political conditions which will make it more difficult

to negotiate the final disposition of areas where they are located. This is especially troublesome at a time when one of the main problems in launching peace

negotiations is to persuade each side that the other intends to negotiate a

settlement within the framework of Resolution 242. Thus, the settlements complicate the work of beginning the negotiations because they raise questions in

Arab minds whether the negotiations, once begun, have a reasonable chance of

succeeding. In this respect, they are analogous to statements from some Arab

quarters which raise questions in Israeli minds whether the Arabs are really

prepared to make genuine peace.

Second, we see the Israeli settlements as inconsistent with international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civiilan Persons

in Time of War, which contains many of the internationally recognized rules

under which military occupation should be conducted, states in Article 49 the

following: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own

population into the territory it occupies."

Both Israel and its Arab neighbors are signatories of the Convention, although

Israel maintains that it does not apply to any of the territories it has occupied

since 1967, and that, in any case, it does not prohibit the establishment of

settlements in occupied territory. We do not agree with this view of the Convention. In addition, we believe that under international law generally a belligerent occupant is not the sovereign power and does not have the right to treat

occupied territory as its own or to make changes in the territory except those

necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. In general, an occupant

may only use the resources of the territory including public lands to meet the

expenses of administering the territory and the military needs of the army of

occupation and for the direct benefit of the indigenous inhabitants.

THE SETTLEMENTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE TERRITORIES

You have asked me to comment on the relationship between the settlements

in occupied territories and the right of self-determination of the people of those

territoriea

To begin with, it is essential to understand an imnortant difference between

th Sinai and the Golan Heights, on the one hand, and the West Bank and Gaza,

on the other.

Territory in the Sinai and the Golan from which Israel withdraws as a

result of a negotiated agreement will clearly revert respectively to Egypt and

Syria, whose sovereignty is not disputed. The issue of self-determination is

therefore not germane in these two cases.

In the West Bank and Gaza, however, the situation is different. Both of these

territories were part of the British mandate of Palestine. While the legitimate

existence of a sovereign Israel in part of Palestine is recognized, the question

of sovereignty in the part of Palestine remaining outside of Israel under the

1949 Armistice agreements has not been finallv resolved. Jordan in May 1950

declared that its annexation of the West Bank was without prejudice to the

final settlement of the Palestine issue, and Egypt did not make any sovereign

claim to the Gaza Str'p during the time it was the administering authority there.

Israel similarly notes the undefined nature of sovereignly in the West Bank

and Gaza.
117

The relationship between the settlements and the principle of self-determination cannot be discussed in isolation, because the settlements are but a single

factor involved in negotiating peace treaties that will provide among other things

for the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the view of the United

States, the important thing concerning the future disposition of the West Bank

and Gaza is that the arrangement be acceptable to the parties concerned. There

is no clear consensus with respect to the question of whether, and if so how,

self-determination might be expressed, or to the timing of such an expression.

Whether such a consensus can be achieved in the negotiating process that lies

ahead remains to be seen. This question, however, together with all the other

complex issues of achieving peace in the Middle East, points up the importance

of reconvening the Geneva Middle East Peace Conference so that the negotiating

process can be resumed as soon as possible. We are now engaged in intensive

diplomatic efforts to that end.

[From the Jerusalem Post Rosh Hashana Magazine, Sept. 12, 1977]

VISIONS, PLANS AND REALITIES

Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon has been putting forward ambitious plans for Jewish settlement in the territories. Yosef Gocll considers them in the light of prospects for peace with the Arabs, relations icith the U.S., and Sharon's vision of the Israel of the future.

How serious is all tie talk about new settlements across the hypothetical

green line which separates pre-1967 Israel from the territories it took over in

the wake of the Six Day War? The question is apposite, for it would seem that

Israel's settlement plans•and actions•have come to dominate the view taken

of Israel by foreign chanceries, and by foreign media and the public opinion they

shape, ever since the advent to power of the Begin Government over three months

ago.

Any attempt to assess what is happening in this field is confusing. One finds

oneself in a morass of differing statements of intent, of much talk and little if

any action, of uneasiness about plans being concocted behind the scenes. Consider

the following:

Mr. Begin's first act following his electoral victory was to appear at the Gush

Emunim settlement of Elon Moreh at Kaddum to promise that there would be

many more Elon Morehs.

Shortly thereafter, Gush Emunim announced that by September 1 they

would have people settle in 12 more sites in Samaria and Judea. They were only

awaiting the go-ahead sign from the new and favourably inclined Begin Government.

On September 1, the Gush Emunim leaders, mindful of the date, held a press

conference at which they expressed disappointment at the government's failure to

implement these settlement plans and half promised, half threatened, that they

were determined to have them in place "by the end of the summer." This deadline

has since been interpreted to mean the intermediate days of Succot.

Agriculture Minister Arik Sharon, who heads the joint Government-Jewish

Agency Settlement Committee, subsequently declared that Gush Emunim and the

government were in agreement on settlement policy and that there would be no

confrontation between them. "They have been told, and fully understand, that

settlements will be established only with specific government approval," Mr.

Sharon told The Post in an interview published last Friday.

The question of timing is up to the government, Mr. Sharon emphasized. When

pressed, he allowed that a substantial number of new settlements could be expected to be set up within the next six months. He would not be pinned down

to anything more specific than that.

Hanan Porat, the head of Gush Emunim's settlement committee, in a description of a typical week's activities published in Ha'aretz 10 days ago, wrote:

". . . The Cabinet Secretary invited us to consider jointly how best to explain

to the world the profound meaning that hltyashvut (settlement) has for us. The

conversation was conducted in a friendly atmosphere ... In the evening we met

with the Prime Minister . . . Several ideas were broached as to how best to advance the cause of hityashvut, ideas which it would be best to keep secret ... I

believe that a deep feeling of friendship has been established between us and Mr.

Begin."
118

As regards action, the Begin Government, in its two-and-a-half months of office,

has "legalized" three settlements established in Samaria under the Labour Government, and announced its intention of going ahead with plans made by that

government for an additional three settlements in Judea and Samaria.

is IT SEBIOUS?

There are at least three contexts in which this question should be considered:

the assumed effect of settlement plans and actions in the territories on the prospects for peace between Israel and the Arabs; their effect on Israel's relations

with the United States in the immediate future; and their relationship to the

internal demographic, social, economic and political realities of Israel today and

their impact on Israel's vision of itself in the future.

Will further Israeli settlement across the green line prove prejudicial, indeed

catastrophic, to the prospects for an Arab-Israel peace ?

To be perfectly objective about it, no one really knows. The diametrically opposed opinions expressed on this question are actually something between sober

assessments and wild guesses both dependent on opinion-holder's perception and

interpretation of the causes and the present state of the Arab-Israel dispute.

To those who believe, as parts of the American political community and media

seem to, that leading elements of the Arab world are at last prepared to accept

Israel, and that peace is around the corner if only the right formula can be found,

the obvious answer is yes, settlement on the West Bank would spell finis to such

hopes.

Neither the present government, nor the Labour Governments since 1967, nor

the overwhelming Israeli consensus, has ever accepted anything that comes close

to such an interpretation of the state of the Arab-Israel dispute. Arab hostility

is seen in terms of total opposition to the existence of Israel, regardless of Israel's

size. Given his view, it is difficult to see why Israeli expansion into Judea and

Samaria should prejudice the prospects for peace any more than does the continued retention of Haifa, Tiberias or Beersheba.

To be sure, there are deep differences between moderate "doves" and the

Greater "hawks" identified with the core of the present Likud-NRP Government

on the settlement issue. But they are less over the assumed effect of settlement on

the prospects for peace than over the question of absorbing or handling the million-plus Arab population that would accrue with the retention of the territories.

The "dovish" attitude is that the forced incorporation of the 1.6 million

Palestinian Arabs into an Israel of 3 million Jews would have catastrophic

consequences for the nature of the society and polity that would constitute

such an Israel; that the very Jewishness and the democratic character of the

state would be irreparably compromised.

The "hawkish" reply is that even the doves are opposed, for security reasons,

to returning the territories today. Given this tacit acquiescence in continued

Israeli control, a crucial question is, who is to fill the void that exists on the

West Bank? For the generally unknown fact is that a good part of the geographical area known as Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, is either empty

of population or very sparsely populated.

The Labour Government's Allon Plan was predicated on the proposition that

the unpopulated Jordan Rift "Valley, and the eastern slopes leading down to it

from the heavily-populated spine of Samaria, would be incorporated into Israel,

thus combining security advantages with those of annexing land without

Arabs.

The Likud's Sharon is now seeking to expand the application of that approach.

He argues that parts of the western slopes of Samaria are a'so thinly populated,

and are even more crucial to Israel's security than the Rift Valley.

The Likud Government is carrying on with its predecessors' policy of "thickening" the Jerusalem corridor with a string of agricultural and urban settlements. These will be connected by a new road to be pushed through from Beit

Horon, slightly north of Latrun, to the Atarot industrial area north of Jerusalem, and then down to Ma'ale Adumim. Both the Atarot and the Ma'ale Adumium

projects were part of the Labour Government's Allon Plan concept.

It is interesting and important to note that Arik Sharon is as emphatic as the

Labour Alignment ever was about not pushing Israeli settlements into the

heartland of the heavily populated mountain spine of Samaria. What is at issue,

however, is the ultimate fate of the Arabs there.
119

The moderates who support retention of the territories for security reasons

see Israel as keeping the Arab areas in trust for an eventual settlement, no matter how long delayed, in which this Arab heartland would be joined with a

Palestinian Jordan. The Greater Israel hawks think of eventual annexation,

when international politics permit.

There is also an unarticulated hope; that significant parts of this Arab population that will find itself a minority in a Jewish state will, somehow, fade

away.

But what of the very immediate and very insistent American opposition?

There is good reason to believe that this will be the most decisive factor in

regard to the actual implementation of settlement plans in the immediate future.

Sharon speaks of this opposition as a passing phenomenon. By this he means

the seven remaining years of the Carter Administration. But of course, no one

can prophesy whether the Carter Administration will persist in this opposition

throughout its term (or terms) of office, or what will be the attitude of a postCarter administration.

Arik Sharon's statement, however, is a good indication of how sensitive the

present government is to American policies on this matter.

This impression is buttressed by the passage quoted above from Hanan

Porat's article regarding the government's concern about "explaining to the

world the profound meaning" of hityashvut. Sharon's statement that new settlements would be established within six months, would seem to be based on expectations of the pricking of the Geneva bubble by then, without Israel's being

blamed by the Americans for the demise of their hopes for a solution in 1977,

and of a subsequent mellowing of American attitudes.

In this connection, Sharon's argument that Israeli settlement in Judea and

Samaria actually works in favour of peace is interesting. It is, of course, open

to the charge of being crass propaganda. But if that is what it is, it comes to

counter the equally propagandist thesis that settlement is prejudicial to a

peace that is within reach.

An important element in the American equation that should not be overlooked

is that of Gush Emunim. The major result of Gush activities, from Sebastia

through Kaddum to its present plans for 12 settlements, has been to arouse

foreign opposition. There would seem to be much truth in the argument that the

intentional publicity that has attended the Gush Emunim exploits, such as their

egregious marches through Arab villages in Samaria, has been the main factor

behind the strengthening of the view abroad that settlements spell an end to

peace hopes.

Some Likud leaders admit as much, but are caught in the dilemma stemming

from the very nature of the Gush. It could not continue to exist, much less maintain the strength needed for the establishment of even a handful of settlements,

without such publicity.

This belief would seem to be strengthened by the virtual American silence

about the recent establishment of new settlements in the Rafiah area in northern

Sinai and the inauguration of the new city of Katzrin in the Golan. And this, of

course, is the Labour Party's argument: that contrary to what the Likud claims,

the Alignment did not neglect to settle the territories but carried it out with

admirable and effective circumspection.

The most important part of the question about the seriousness of the government's settlement plans, however, concerns the glaring gap between visions, plans

and realities.

Arik Sharon speaks of settling 2m. people out of a total Jewish population of

6-8m. by the end of the century in a strip, parallel to the coast, extending from

the Golan, through the Jordan Rift Valley, the Arava and down to Sharm

e-Sheikh at the southern tip of Sinai.

The reality, as he himself admits, is that after 10 years of settlement effort,

there are fewer than 10,000 Israelis across the green line. The claim that a good

many of the settlements in the Rift Valley are nearly empty, or very thinly

occupied, was not just a piece of Alignment electioneering gaucherie, but a sorry

fact. There are still about ten times as many Arabs in Jericho and neighbouring

Auja as in all the 15 Israeli settlements in the valley. Kiryat Arba, further to

the south, is one-third empty.

In the much shorter term, he speaks of the great urgency of thickening the

Jerusalem corridor; settling the western slopes of Samaria and the crossSamaria highway which is to connect the coastal plain with the Rift Valley;
120

rescuing the wide areas between Hebron and the Arad Valley from the depradations of Arab poachers; continuing the settlement of the Raflah gap, and seriously

tackling the problem of the Jewish-Arab population balance in Galilee. The

weakness here is that there is no reference to priorities among these many goals.

To continue with the realities: Gush Emunim claims, at most, several hundred

families who are ready to establish their 12 settlements. Sharon says that an

additional several hundred young families have signed up to "go on Mtyashvut"

as evidence of a reawakening of true patriotic and Zionist fervour.

A few thousand souls who have indicated their intentions, but not done anything yet to implement them, are a fraction of the much larger numbers which

have actually gone to settle under Labour Governments during the past 10 years.

This hardly constitutes the revolution in attitudes required to move Israelis from

the coastal strip to the parallel strip inland.

Of course, there is always aliya. But last year, the number of immigrants

totalled 21,000. There are no exact figures, but it is believed that the number

of those who left the country as undeclared emigrants is close to that figure. This

has been the case for the past three years.

Cause for greater concern is the fact that few, if any, Jews who are seeking to

leave such trouble spots as Argentina or South Africa are thinking of coming

to Israel. This is a repetition of the behaviour of the much smaller community

of Chilean Jewry which, when forced to leave Chile several years ago, chose not

to come to Israel. And the drop-out rate among Jews leaving the Soviet Union has

continued to be above 50 per cent for a good part of this year.

Against this depressing background, the major debate which seems to be developing around the question of the future of aliya is whether Aryeh Dulzin of the

Jewish Agency or Absorption Minister David Levy will control their absorption.

Is it serious? Not really. At least not yet.

Mr. Sharon is absolutely correct in saying that Israel needs a guiding vision,

and that the vision of a second surge of settlement activity could prove as energizing for Israel and for the Jewish people as was the first, which seems to have

run out of human steam some years ago.

Arik Sharon is far from being the originator of this vision, but if he is to be

its prophet in the new regime, one hopes that he is aware of a number of problems

and ironies connected with its implementation under a Likud Government.

Of all the factors involved in turning such a vision into reality-•political constraints, money, land and people•the last is the most important and the most

problematic. People must be moved to participate in and carry through such a

major project in continuing nation-building and that generally requires the

inspiration of a movement.

Irony number one is that of all of Israel's political movements Mr. Begin's

Herut and its partner in the Likud, the Liberals, have historically been the

furthest removed from Israel's first-stage settlement effort. Whether they will

be able to organize a true movement that will enthuse and energize the countless

thousands of Israelis and prospective immigrants without whom such a gargantuan project will remain nothing more than yellowing blueprints, remains

to be seen.

Arik Sharon is very close to the mark when he notes that, in order to get such

a human movement off the ground and sustain its momentum, established Israel

along the coastal plain will have to be deprived of its preferential suckling-place

at the teats of the national treasury. One will have to await the return from

the United States of Finance Minister Simcha Ehrlich and the entire Treasury

elite, to canvass their opinion in the matter. In addition one cannot refrain from

cynical thoughts concerning the views of the Likud's supporters in the Cities of

the Plain.

Mr. Sharon's potentially biggest ally in his declared intention of turning Israel

around is the hityashvut movement•the kibutzim and moshavim•whose dedicated members constituted the human element of Israel's first settlement urge.

The second irony is that this impressive human reserve is largely organized

in the parties that oppose the present government.

The success or failure of Arik Sharon's and the Begin Government's ambitious

plans for the physical and political future of Israel partly may well depend on

whether they are capable of overcoming the wall of mutual suspicion that exists

between Israel's new rulers and her old pioneers. In a much larger sense it will

depend on revolutionizing the relationship between Israel and the Jewish people

on the sore subject of aliya.
121

[From the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 9, 1977]

A VISION or ISRAEL AT CENTURY'S END

(Ariel Sharon interviewed by Yosef Goell)

"I admit it all sounds like a dream. But everything we have ever done started

out as a dream."

Thus spoke Arik Sharon, the pragmatic general, the Yom Kippur War's "Arik

King of Israel," today's Minister of Agriculture and more important, head of the

joint Government-Jewish Agency Committee on Settlement.

I had come to interview Arik on settlement plans, intending to begin with the

de rigueur question about his impending confrontation with the Gush Emunim. He

insisted however, on shifting the burden of the interview to his vision of Israel

at century's end and its implication for today's settlement policy.

If one projects one's thoughts 20-30 years ahead, Arik says, the seemingly insuperable obstacles to further settlement in the territories assume their true

proportions as passing problems.

The main thing is to keep one's eye on an Israel with a Jewish population of

6-8 million, at least two million of whom will reside in an inland strip parallel

to the present coastal strip, and extending from the Golan, through the Jordan

Rift Valley, the Arava and down to Sharm el-Sheikh.

Once you look at it that way, everything else falls into place, he argues.

But what do we do with American opposition to settlement in Judea and

Samaria?

"It will change. Look, I welcomed the election of Jimmy Carter as president,

and I still do; I greatly resented pressures to which we were subjected by the

Ford Administration. But at worst it (the Carter Administration) is a passing

phase compared with our long-range goals; it will be there for a maximum of

eight years."

Arik affects the same attitude towards the impact of the Geneva Conference,

or last week's Arab Foreign Ministers conference, on the fate of his settlement

plans.

Beneath this philosophical exterior, however, one senses that he's boiling.

"Several days ago someone from the British Embassy contacted me with an

urgent query from London as to whether it was true that Israel had established

a new settlement near Jenin.

"I told him, 'I didn't know that you still maintain a Colonial Office.'

"It's really none of their business. Just like what they choose to do in Scotland

is none of ours."

Turning to polities, he charges it was the previous Labor Government that

created a situation in which Israel became almost totally dependent on foreign

approval or disapproval of its actions in its own domestic affairs.

Obviously addressing himself to the foreign critics of the Begin Government's

settlement policy•whose architect he is, and whose presumed builder he will

be•Arik notes :

"These plans are not prejudicial to the prospects of peace. To the contrary.

The creation of bands of settlements through Judea and Samaria will give us

a sense of security for the first time, which in turn will permit us to entertain

more daring solutions to the question of the Arab population than we can permit

ourselves today."

It is specifically such a settlement plan which will enable Israel to leave her

options open in this regard, he argues. He insists that the Begin Government

has no intention of expropriating privately owned Arab lands for the settlement

projects, nor of pushing Israeli settlement into the areas of high Arab population density on the spine of the Samaria mountains between Jenin, Nablus and

Ramallah.

The Labor Government's Allon Plan concept, he points out, did not provide

solutions for Israel's security needs, and would therefore in the long run have

closed off such options.

What are the plans of which he speaks?

The basis for all the plans is the concept of leap-frogging from the coastal

strip, which was the main site of Jewish settlement in the first century of Zionist

settlement, to the parallel inland strip.
122

"It all depends on what sort of Israel one envisions, an overcrowded, nervous,

irritating and ecologically sick strip of concrete along the coast, or an ecologically healthy country with a sound distribution of its millions of inhabitants

over a much larger area which will provide for basic security and a healthy economy and society."

THH PLAN'S SPECIFICS

Since the question was obviously rhetorical, we went on to consider the specifics

of the plan calling for an eventual two million Jews living in the inland strip.

The short term plans leading up to it concentrate much more on the connective

tissue that makes up the area between the two strips.

For Arik there are several points of great urgency:

Thickening the Jerusalem corridor so that it never again presents the lure

to attack that it did in its narrower pre-1967 state. This means pushing an

alternative road through from Beit Horon, slightly north of Latrun, to the

Atarot industrial park between Jerusalem and Ramallah and then over the

crest and down to the new industrial park and town being built at Maaleh

Adumin, 15 kms, east of Jerusalem on the Jericho road. Sett'ements. especially

of an urban, industrial and residential character are to be built along this road;

Connecting the coastal belt with the inland strip by means of a broad highway

originating at about Petah Tikva, and going through the newly established settlement of Pe'erim (Mes'ha) through the biblical Shilo, which will be resettled, to

the new regional centre of Maale Ephraim in the Jordan Valley foothills and

down to the Valley road;

The foothill areas to the south of Hebron. There, Arik says, Arabs from the

Hebron area have taken over tens of thousands of dunams of state-owned land

on both sides of the former green line, plowing, sowing and even building homes.

The only way to stop this poaching, he declares, is by establishing a string of

Israeli settlements, of which Yattir will be the first;

(In an aside, Arik notes that over 10.000 Arabs are similarly encroaching on

state-owned lands between Ashkelon and Hadera on 800 sites. "Something will

have to be done about that," he mutters, and adds that the situation in Galilee,

with Arabs taking over State-owned lands, is not much better. "One of the

absurdities of our situation," he says, "is that over the past 10 years less than

10,000 Jews have been settled across the green line and the world is in a tizzy;

but in the same period, over 30,000 Arabs from the territories have come-to reside in Israel, including Jerusalem, and no one says a thing."

The western slopes of Samaria. Arik notes that as a result of the 1949 Armistice

Agreements, Israel's narrow waist has been bounded on the east by a string of

Arab villages from TJmm el-Fahm to Kafr Kassem. whose inhabitants today

number close to 100,000. Immediately on the other side of the former green line

is another band of dense Arab settlements in towns such as Tulkarm and

Kalkilya and the villages in between, which also number close to 100,000 inhabitants. The danger, he says, is that this solid Arab block will grow to join the

other area of dense Arab settlement on the mountain tops. This must be prevented by the insertion of a wedge of Israeli settlements in the sparsely populated western slopes. This would consist of a line going from Dothan in the north

through Shrom (Sebastia), Kaddum. Karnel Shomron, Pe'erim, Timnat Heres,

Xebi Salah and Beit Horon.

These projects are the ones meriting greatest urgency, but the continuing

settlement of the Golan, the Jordan Rift. Galilee, the Rafiah Gap and its connection witli Eilat will not be neglected, while the more urgent projects are being

attended to.

Where are all the settlers to come from? Gush Emunim will provide some,

the other settlement movements others, and "there is also a most gratfiying

rush of hundreds of young families who have already signed up with us for settlement projects."

Sharon is especially encouraged by this latter phenomenon of youngsters from

well-to-do homes, with good jobs and incomes deciding to accept the challenge of

striking out in new directions. It is a good sign for the future realization of his

visions, he feels.

But his eyes are set primarily on a resumption of large scale aliya of young

Jews seeking new challenges.

"Jews," he says, "will never come here for the purpose of living a materially

more comfortable life than they can have in the galut. They will come if we offer

them a challenge and a flag to follow."
123

He feels that the Idea of large scale settlement which will, be pluralistic enough

to provide different forms and different challenges to different groups, is the

answer.

Finally, getting to the Gush Emunini question which is on the tip of my tongue,

Arik denies press reports that he was warned the Gush not to dare settle on their

own without Government approval.

"There is no confrontation between us and there will be none. The Gush understands that settlement is to be only on the basis of Government approval. The

operative question is that of timing, and that will be decided by the Government."

Other settlement movements will be encouraged to settle in accordance with

their own ideological limitations, he says. If one movement refuses to settle in

Samaria, but agrees to settle in the Golan, Galilee or Raflah, they will be

welcome.

He feels that a significant number of American Jews and American Jewish

communities will respond to the challenge of setting up independent settlements

of their own. If, for example, American Jews want the chance of establishing a

town of their own in Galilee according to their own ideas and their own standards, the new government will give them that chance, he says.

"The main thing is to get around the monster bureaucracy that has grown

up around the whole settlement setup and free it from its shackles. That, and

making sure that, national resources are diverted from the coastal be't to the

new projects inland. Admittedly its a difficult thing to do politically, but it will

be done because it has to be done."

What do Finance Minister Simha Ehrlich and the other Ministers have to say

to what sounds like a bit of political naivete on the part of the new boy?

Arik does not answer directly but goes over to speak of the atmosphere in

which the Begin Government conducts its business.

"These plans I've outlined have not yet been approved by the entire Cabinet.

But there's no need for that at this stage. I've presented them to Prime Minister

Begin and shown them to the other concerned Ministers and all have approved.

"The important thing to understand about this Government is that it has a

clear line of its own. Because of that, and because Prime Minister Begin is the

most authoritative Premier since Ben-Gurion, every one of the Ministers enjoys

much greater autonomy in his field than was the case in the previous governments.

"There is no backbiting or backstabbing among the Ministers, and we have

been working in optimal harmony and coordination. In my capacity as Minister of

Agriculture I meet with the two other economic Ministers, Finance Minister

Ehrlich and Industry Minister Hurvitz, weekly, and we get along fine."

The autonomy Sharon speaks of has been great enough to permit him to lord

it over his Joint-Commitee on Settlement, and to withhold details of his plans

from its Jewish Agency members, most of whom are L,abor Party appointees. As

far as I could learn he has the Prime Minister's support in this policy in the

interests of maintaining maximum secrecy on what they consider to be a very

sensitive subject.

The same was true of the interview. It was difficult to learn whether there are

fully detailed plans for the establishment of settlements in accordance with the

general guidelines outlined above, or whether the whole matter was still one of

rather empty ideological posturing.

"Make no mistake about it," Arik brought us out of our heretical reveries, "This

Government will establish many new settlements. That's what it was elected to do

and that's what it will do." (There was ho im yirtze hashem•'God Willing'•

which has become a required appendage to declarative sentences uttered by Begin

Government ministers.)

"The former Government did not recognize the right of all Jews to settle in all

parts of Eretz Yisrael. This government does. We will not allow the situation to

go on under which Arabs were permitted to reside anywhere in our land, but

Jews were not.

"I and my plan do not represent, an extreme position. To the contrary, I am

ready, as I explained, to consider different options for a solution of the problem

of this country's Arabs. The condition for such flexibility is that we neutralize

the danger to our security. This is what the Allon Plan concept failed to do, and

what our plan provides for.

"We are also basing ourselves on the belief that Jews and Arabs can live

together in peace. I have believed this ever since I was a child, and continue

to believe so today. What has changed is that now I am in a position to try to

do something to prove it."
124

ISRAELI LAND ACQUISITION IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY, 1967-77

(By John Ruedy1)

This paper represents a first, and as yet incomplete, attempt by the author to

take an overview of Israeli land acquisition in territories conquered from the

Arabs in 1967. It also attempts to relate that acquisition to a larger process of

Jewish land appropriation which began three quarters of a century ago. There

is much more research to be done before the tentative findings contained below

can be considered definitive.

Under the influence of the intellectual inputs of the second aliya of 1904-14,

the emerging Zionist ethos began to reserve a central, even primordial place

for ownership and cultivation of land. While no more than 19 percent of Jewish

settlers in Palestine have at any one time been residents on the land, the kibbutzim and similar institutions are ensconced in the emotional and intellectual

heart of Zionism. From a more practical point of view, Zionist leadership determined as early as 1910 that reliable and permanent political control could

only exist when the land was juridically, economically, and actually under

Jewish control.

By 1950, the Conciliation Commission for Palestine estimated that Jews in the

77 percent of Mandate Palestine that had become Israel held some 640,000 hectares of cultivable land. Of this total, some 457,400 hectares, or 72 percent, had

been Arab owned or occupied two years before. It is instructive to look briefly at

how this transformation came about.

Using Zionist figures supplied to the United Nations Special Commission on

Palestine in 1947, Jews on the eve of Israeli statehood were in possession of

about 180,000 hectares of land in all Palestine. That area represented between

9 percent and 12 percent of the cultivable land in the country. Some of this land

had been assigned to Jews by the British authorities out of reserves of state

land. Most of it had been purchased over the years by Jewish agencies and individuals. A good portion, though by no means all, was purchased from absentee

landowners. With the enormous immigration pressures occasioned by Hitler's

rise to power in 1933, Jewish purchasing agents began to offer what appeared

to Palestinian owners of the time as astronomical prices. An interesting aspect

of Jewish National Fund land policy was the decision from about 1936 to use

the pattern of land purchases to attempt to create "facts" to weigh on possible

future political decisions. When it became clear to the Zionist leadership that

some form of partition of Palestine was a distinct possibility, emergency measures were taken to establish Jewish toeholds in districts that until then had

little or no Jewish settlement. This establishment of landed "facts" is a theme

that recurs even more dramatically after 1967.

By virtue of their 1948 victory Zionists fell heir to the legal apparatus of the

state, which in turn permitted them to enter into possession of all but 53,000

hectares of cultivable land within their lines. Firstly they inherited the Mandate's public domain, a not inconsiderable portion of which consisted of land

actually farmed or used for grazing by Arabs. Secondly, they took over an enormous amount of land owned by Arabs who had fled or were driven beyond Jewish

lines and whom they did not subsequently permit to return. Forty percent of

land owned by Arabs who were still in Israel was also appropriated and assigned

to a Custodian of Abandoned Property. Bv far the largest part of the property

acquired by the Jewish State in the late 1940's or early 1950's was property owned

by Arabs and classified by the state as vacant or abandoned.

A third, widely-used technique of land acquisition was the use of the power

of expropriation. Expropriation for the benefit of projects of public interest,

e.g., school, roads, post offices with subsequent indemnification of those expropriated is a recognized prerogative of the modern state. In Israel it was determined

that the establishment of Jewish settlements of one kind or another or the

consolidation of or rounding out of existing holdings was, in fact, in the public

interest. Arabs were deprived of property at fixed 1950 prices even many years

after 1950 so that Jews could be settled in their places. While some Palestinians

accepted the compensation offered, many would not, wishing to avoid definitively

signing away their rights. In these cases expropriation amounted in fact to

confiscation.

1 Dr. Ruedy Is Professor of History at Georgetown University.
125

A final technique was the imposition of ex post facto legal tests of land

ownership. In order to regularize what the Israelis perceived as a confused land

tenure situation, a law required all Arab proprietors to produce deeds of ownership or other proof of continuous holding of a property for the past 15 years.

Many small holders could produce neither and subsequently lost their houses,

gardens, farms or shops.

Ten years ago in Land Policy in Colonial Algeria I examined the techniques

used by French settlers to appropriate the landed wealth of Algeria before

the middle of the 19th century. The degree of similarity that exists between the

techniques of European land appropriation in Palestine in the 20th century and

those employed a century earlier in the Maghrib is striking. In the course of

the war brought about by the coming of the Europeans, large segments of the

native population flee or are driven away; one then seizes as vacant or

abandoned or as enemy property, the lands so deserted. One also completely

disrupts local property markets and values by offering prices several times what

the local market is accustomed to. One creates ex post facto criteria to determine

the legality of tenures. One mobilizes the expropriation powers of the state in

order to settle members of the ruling ethnic group in place of the ruled. Utilizing

a totally Western concept of proprietorship, one evicts from public domain lands

peasants and pastoralists who have occupied them for generations.

The pattern of Israeli land acquisition in the territories occupied since 1967

is one that continues essentially the objectives and techniques of the earlier

period. Political realities have, however, brought about modification in the

modalities of implementation of land policy. To understand the pattern of the

last ten years one must recall briefly the international and domestic political

contexts in which land acquisition has taken place.

Firstly, the international consensus as expressed in Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November 1967, after stating the inadmissibility of the acquisition

of territory by force, called upon the Israelis to withdraw from territories

occupied in the conflict. The United States, Israeli's chief world sponsor, adhered

to the resolution, and for 10 years has continued to reiterate that any boundary

changes would be insubstantial and would not reflect the weight of conquest.

Secondly, the domestic political reality for Israel was that as early as

December 1967, public opinion polls showed a majority of Israeli Jews in favor

of retaining all or almost all the occupied territories. The religious right wing

then as now spearheaded this irredentist or expansionist sentiment, but it was

not limited to that group. At the same time a minority on the left favored trading

territory for peace.

Governments of Israel have traditionally been coalitions dominated but not

completely controlled by the Labor Party. The governments were buffeted between the requirements of the religious elements of the coalition and those of

the more conciliatory elements. At the same time the governments could not

afford too openly to flaunt the international consensus favoring withdrawal for

fear of embarrassing or even alienating Israel's chief sponsor and protector.

It is only against the background of these competing pressures that one can

begin to understand the circumspect way in which the succeeding governments

of Eshkol, Meir and Rabin pursued the acquisition of Palestinian and other

occupied Arab land until June 1977. The Allon Plan of settlement was first articulated only two months after the June War. Caught betvven maximalist, minimalist, world and U.S. opinion, no Israeli government ever officially accepted the

Allon Plan. For maximalists, acceptance of the plan would have implied Israeli

alienation of an important part of the national patrimony. For others it would

have implied rejection of the world consensus that favored withdrawal. Yet, in

accord with the Allon Plan, succeeding Israeli cabinets between 1967 and 1977

implemented what came to be known as the "Oral Law", a verbal agreement

amongst key leaders of the Party with the following elements: (1) Permanent

Israeli presence on the Golan Heights; (2) holding a line from El Arish on the

Mediterranean to Ras Muhammad on the Red Sea ; (3) holding Sharm al Shaykh

and a land link to Eilat; (4) a security zone around Jerusalem, in the Latrum

Bulge and south of Bethlehem ; (5) a security border at the Jordan River cutting

the populous heartland of the West Bank off from military support from the east.

The lines would be secured by planting colonies of various types and sizes along

the perimeters defined by the plan.

By mid-1976 there were some 68 settlements of different kinds, holding, by

unoflicial count, about 15,000 people. There were 25 settlements in the Golan

20-488 O - 78 - 9
126

Heights; 17 in the Jordan Valley; (6) clustered around the Latrum Bulge,

Jerusalem and south around Bethlehem; and 17 in Gaza and Sinai. There were

also the irregular settlements at Hebron and Nablus established by the religious

militants of the Gush Emunim.

One is struck by the perseverance and consistency with which a series of three

governments, none of which ever adopted the plan, nevertheless labored to make

it a reality. Terence Smith in a 1976 New York Times article estimated that

Israel had by then spent at least $500 million on settlements•an enormous sum

for a state in Israel's financial condition. The Allon Plan, sanctioned informally

by the leadership of the dominent political party, was pursued doggedly in the

face of numerous objections from Palestinians, Arab governments, the United

Nations and the United States. The governments of Israel justified the settlements on the basis of their contribution to the security of the state and repeatedly maintained that their existence could not be construed as Israeli expansion or as contrary to the letter or spirit of Security Council Resolution 242.

The properties for these settlements were acquired in a variety of ways. Firstly,

the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian public domains fell to the Israelis by virtue

of the conquest. In the West Bank that public domain amounted to about 80,000

hectares, or about one sixth of the land surface of the region. Some was desert or

mountain land, some was built up area, but a considerable portion was used for

farming or grazing. Secondly, there was a considerable amount of "Abandoned

Property" of refugees from the 1967 war or later periods or of deportees, mounting to about 32,000 hectares in the West Bank and a considerable amount in the

Golan Heights as well. Where public domain lands and abandoned lands were

insufficient to the needs of settlement, the Israel Land Authority could sometimes

purchase directly to acquire what it wanted. More frequently, however, it resorted to expropriation. These are expropriations entered into without benefit of

public hearing and without prior consultation with the community or individuals

concerned. As often as not, notice of intention to expropriate is of very short

duration. Sometimes there is no advanced notice. It appears that in a considerable majority of cases expropriation amounts in practical terms to confiscation,

since most Palestinians do not accept the compensation offered by the Land

Authority. They do not accept it for one or a combination of reasons. Some fear

that accepting compensation might make them liable under Jordanian Law

which makes sale of land to Israelis a capital offense. Others out of solidarity

with their communities and the national cause refuse to accept compensation.

Perhaps the majority refuse Israeli money because they do not want to sign away

forever claims to properties they do not want to give up.

One irony of the situation, though, is that the Israelis early on came to know

that most Palestinians would not accept their compensation. They have come to

count on getting most of their expropriations free; in many ways this Palestinian

fear, patriotism or attachment to land, by making settlement less costly for the

colonists, facilitates the achievement of Israeli goals and the alienation of the

Arab patrimony.

The implementation of the Allon Plan represents the most apparent, least

concealable level of Israeli territorial acquisition. At another level one encounters acquisition motivated by militant and expansionist nationalism which

is undergirded for many Israelis by a traditional religious sanction. This views

the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and even parts of Sinai as liberated

Jewish territory to be "reincorporated" thoroughly and permanently into "Eretz

Israel". As one Israeli minister said recently in connection with the legalization

of the Oamp Kadum settlement at Nablus, "How can you annex the land of

Israel to the people of Israel?" So, while at the overt level the never officially

adopted Allon Plan is doggedly pursued and defended to the outside world and

to Israeli doves as necessary for national security, at a quieter level, organs of

the same state and citizens of that state are pursuing a much more inclusive

goal.

There has been an enormous amount of land acquired by private Israeli

citizens and by non-Israeli Jews, especially in the Jerusalem area, where a

number of speculative fortunes have been made. The involvement of high government officials in some of this speculation led to a scandal a few years back.

More importantly, the Jewish National Fund and the Israel Land Authority

since 1968 have been quietly buying land all over the West Bank at a rate that

seems to have accelerated at least until the spring of 1976, when some observers
127

think it began to slow. These purchases never were limited to the perimeters of

the Allon Plan. As one Israeli official said, "We will buy any land, anywhere, at

any price, and in any currency."

The existence in a general way of this active purchasing program of the Land

Authority and the Jewish National Fund has been an open secret for many years.

In March 1976 Israel State Radio even aired a program on it. But in specifics

little is known. The government often uses intermediaries to cover its purchases

so that the seller does not know he has sold to Israelis. Transactions are not

publicly recorded. Neither the Israel Land Authority nor the Military Governor

of the West Bank will release figures of any kind on the transactions. As a

result of this quieter program of acquisition, Israelis own property in Ramallah,

Hebron, Nablus, Tulkarm, Jericho and all over the populated heartland of the

West Bank•land whose situation bears no relation at all to the settlement patterns of the Allon Plan or to the de facto settlements of the religious militants.

Is it possible to quantify the results of Israeli land acquisition programs since

1967?•only partially and imperfectly in the present state of our knowledge. For

the Golan Heights the answer is simple. By acquiring the Syrian public domain

and by occupying a region devoid of nine tenths of its population, the Israelis

came to own most of the land outright. Most of the settled population left the

Sinai as a result of the 1967 hostilities. Israeli authorities have assumed the

right to evict Bedouins from their holdings at will when lands they occupy are

needed for Jewish settlement there. Gaza is a more complex case; but a few

thousand hectares have been acquired there through the forced resettlement of

Palestinian refugees in new Sinai quarters.

On the West Bank Israel has acquired the Jordanian public domain of

80,000 hectares, 32,000 hectares of property "abandoned" by refugees or deportees,

and at least 16,000 hectares of exproporiated land. The effort to quantify the

purchases presents the most difficulties. According to Israel State Radio, state

agencies and the Jewish National Fund spent about $7,000,000 on land acquisitions in 1975. If that figure is representative and if $2,000 per hectare is an

average price, in nine years the Land Authority and Jewish National Fund had

bought some 30,000 hectares. As of mid-1977, the total of Israeli land ownership

on the West Bank is probably about 160,000 hectares, almost exactly one third

of the land surface of the West Bank.

The Zionist movement is moving steadily toward control of the land which

has been an essential part of its ethos for three quarters of a century. If one

uses as a base figure the total land surface of Mandate Palestine, one discovers

that Arabs today•in Israel and the occupied territories of Gaza and the West

Bank•still hold about 380,000 hectares, or 19%. Israelis hold 1,640,000 hectares,

or slightly more than 81%. In Israeli terms, "conquest of the land" has been

met with stunning success.

TWO ARTICLES ON THE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

[From the Jerusalem Post Rosh Hashana Magazine, Sept. 12, 1977]

SETTLEMENT AT THE CROSSROADS

After a decade of close coordination, the two major bodies planning settlement in rural areas appear to have reached a parting of

the ways. Abraham Rabinovich looks at the plan of the Jewish

Agency's Settlement Department, and compares it with the programme outlined recently by the chairman of the Ministerial Settlement Committee.

Beginning in almost offhand fashion as a grassroots movement, settlement

across the pre-1967 border has develoned in the past 10 years into high policy

touching on cardinal questions of Israel's future.

At the end of July, 1967, members of Galilee and Jordan Valley settlements

began moving into army installations on the Golan Heights abandoned by the

Syrians little more than a month before. Their object was to "create facts" and

ensure that a permanent civilian Israeli presence would be established on the

heights which had so long been an omnious threat looming over them.

Such a presence was hardly a foregone conclusion at the time. "People were

still thinking in terms of the Sinai Campaign when we pulled back after a
128

few months," recalls Meir Shamir, who was tx> become the settlement official

in charge of coordination on the Golan.

Government policy would probably have evolved in due course, in the direction of settlement; but the partisan efforts certainly prodded it into movement

earlier. In the case of Kiryat Arba, Rabbi Moshe Levinger and his followers

squatting in a Hebron hotel pushed the government into doing something it had

at first explicitly opposed•creating a Jewish urban settlement in Hebron.

The young men whose fathers had been killed or captured in the fall of the

Etzion Bloc to the Arab Legion 19 years earlier began petitioning government

officials for permission to resettle on that West Bank site almost as soon as the

Six Day War ended. By the end of September, 1967, the government agreed to

the establishment of a para-military Nahal settlement at Gush Etzion.

In the same month, the authorities decided to assist the settlers who had gone

up on their own to the Golan Heights. A month later, the first schematic plan for

official settlement on the Golan was drawn up. Similar planning was also begun

for the other territories beyond the green line, that marked the border on the

pre-1967 maps of Israel.

The post-1967 period has seen the greatest thrust in settlement building since

the days of mass immigration following the establishment of the state, when

some 350 settlements were established in five years.

The pace of the early '50s had gradually tapered off and on the eve of the

Six Day War there were hardly any garinim•settlement groups•waiting to go

up on the land. In the three years preceding the war, only five new settlements

were established. In the 10 years since, 113 settlements have been established,

77 of them across the green line. The densest concentration, numbering 26, is on

the Golan Heights. A close second is the lower Jordan Valley, including the

eastern slopes of Samaria, with 21 settlements.

The Etzion Bloc now has seven settlements and there are three others at

other points on top of the West Bank hills. The Raflah area, including the

southern tip of the Gaza Strip, has 17 existing or under construction, and the

east Sinai coast south of Eilat has three.

Most of the settlements are traditional moshavim or kibbutzim; but a dozen

are Nahal settlements which have not yet been "civilianized." Four on the Golan

are designated civilian "outposts" and six are urban settlements.

Within the green line, 36 settlements have been established in the past decade

in the Galilee, Arava, Bsor region and elsewhere.

Thousands of would-be settlers are organized today in garinim. In contrast

with the European town dwellers who founded the early kibbutzim and the immigrants from Islamic countries who were settled in the post-1948 moshavim

most of the new settlers are youths born in kibbutzim and moshavim.

These second-generation farmers are capable of applying modern agro-techniques without the painful years of trial their parents had to undergo. This is

one of the principal reasons that the settlements are able to become selfsufficient•indeed,•sometimes highly profitable•within a very few years.

The primary vehicle for rural settlement for the past half century has been

the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency. It maintained its role even

after the founding of the state. With the domination by the Labour movement

of both the government and the Agency, an identity of political outlook was

ensured.

For legal reasons, operative responsibility for settlements beyond the green

line after 1967 was given to the Settlement Department of the World Zionist

Organization (WZO) which is nearly identical in its personnel with that of the

Agency's Settlement Department. Since 1970, decisions on settlements beyond

the green line are made by a body commonly known as the Ministerial Committee on Settlement but actually composed of an equal number of government

ministers and members of the WZO.

The advent of a Likud administration has snapped the organic political ties

between the government and the WZO. Bach has now drawn up its own settlement plan. The head of the Ministerial Settlement Committee, Ariel Sharon, has

presented his plon to Prime Minister Begin. Prof. Ra'anan Weitz, head of the

WZO Settlement Department, will present his plan to the Zionist Congress in

February.

The WZO plan, based on extensive professional knowledge, is likely to form

an important element in the government's overall approach to settlements even
129

though the government undoubtedly intends to go beyond it as far as West

Bank settlement is concerned.

Following is the first public look at the WZO settlement proposal for 1977-

1992.

Where two-thirds of new settlements in the last 10 years were established

across the green line, Weitz proposes concentrating two-thirds in Israel proper

during the next 15 years. This reversal of emphasis in part reflects limitations of arable land and water across the green line. It also reflects Weitz'

political views, which dictate the avoidance of settlement in the heavilypopulated areas of the West Bank.

Out of the 186 settlements to be established in the period, Weitz proposes

49 for the territories. Of these, 20 are designated for the Raflah area, 10 for the

Golan Heights, four for the eastern Sinai coast and 15 for the West Bank, including the lower Jordan Valley, Judea and the slopes of Samaria.

To know the precise difference between what Weitz and Sharon have in view

for the West Bank•and the only significant difference between them apparently, concerns the West Bank•we must wait for a detailed presentation of

their respective plans. Both have thus far refrained from spelling out the

precise sites they have in mind.

Both propose a line of settlement running from north to south on the western edge of Samaria which borders Israel's narrow waist and population

centres. Weitz' settlements, however, would straddle the green line and apparently penetrate it eastward no more than two or three kilometres. Sharon

indicated on a map during a television interview last Friday that this northsouth line would be higher up in the foothills but still short of the crest of

the central hill chain.

The difference between Sharon's line and Weitz' is probably only a few

kilometres; but the West Bank is so narrow that the difference on a map is

significant•especially considering that most of the opposite•eastern•slopes

of Samaria are designated by both men for Jewish settlements.

This leaves only the spine of the hills•perhaps 30-40 km. wide•as an area

of predominantly Arab settlement. But while Weitz would refrain from introducing Israeli settlements here except around Jerusalem and the Etzion

Bloc, Sharon would create three urban centres on the crest outside the Jerusalem area•one between Bethlehem and Hebron and two at the northern

end of the West Bank. He may have smaller settlements in mind as well to

straddle an east-west road he proposes pushing through the heart of Samaria.

Weitz' settlement plan for the next 15 years envisions three major thrusts,

which he calls the Southern Project, the Eastern Project and the Northern

Project.

It is the Northern Project, settlement of the Galilee, that he speaks of with

the greatest sense of urgency.

"There is a real danger of the Galilee not being an integral part of the

country," he says. Living in the Galilee hills today are 62,000 Jews and 160,000

Arabs and other minorities. Between Arab Nazareth and the Lebanese border

there is no Jewish settlement.

The WZO plan calls for 41 new settlements in the Galilee by 1992. To overcome the shortage of arable land, Weitz has proposed a new settlement concept•

a communal village based on light industry. The first such settlements are

already being developed.

The Eastern Project, embracing the Golan, lower Jordan Valley, Arava (inside the green line) and the eastern Sinai coast, envisions 29 new settlements

in the next 15 years and is plainly in support of political objectives.

Major emphasis is given to the Southern Project, which overlaps the green

line. Its area extends from Rafiah almost to Beersheba. Climate and soil conditions make this an ideal region for the growth of profitable winter vegetables

for Europe. In the coming 15 years, 94 settlements would be built in the area,

20 of them across the green line, the rest in Israel proper.

As a central principle, Weitz' plan avoids the populated areas of the West Bank

and Gaza Strip.

"History shows that you can live in peace provided you are separate," he says.

"Catholic Ireland could coexist with Protestant Ulster. But an Ulster in which

large numbers of Catholics live with a Protestant majority is a wound that will

never heal. Cyprus won't heal unless it's divided.
130

"In Galilee, our solution must be to have a preponderance of Jews, with a

very small Arab minority. But in the West Bank and Gaza we will never have an

overwhelming preponderance, even if we have an immigration of 100,000 a year.

The solution must be separation of the population while holding on to the strategic lines•along the Jordan, for Instance•on which our fate depends."

[From the Jerusalem Post Rosh Hashana Magazine, Sept. 12, 1977]

A NEW CONCEPT

Development of the industrial village, or kafat, represents a

'turning point' in the concept of settlement, Dr. Ra'anan Weitz,

head of the Jewish Agency's Settlement Department, tells The Post's

Abraham Rabinovich.

New agricultural techniques, new military realities and new social visions are

revolutionizing the character of rural settlement, which has shaped this country

and much of its leadership during the past half century.

Dr. Ra'anan Weitz is the prophet of this revolution. He is one of its major

architects as well.

"Rural settlement is at an historic turning point," says Weitz, who as head of

the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency is one of the country's foremost authorities on the subject.

The founders of Zionist settlement policy 60 years ago realized "explicitly or

otherwise," he says, that the border of the future Jewish state would be determined by the pattern of rural settlement. They conceived settlements as selfcontained units dispersed so as to dominate as much space as possible. In this

context, the settlements were referred to as "points" nekudot.

Their significance was not just political but military. The settlements came to

be seen as strong points in a static defence or as jumping off points for offensive

operations, in any conflict to come.

These concepts proved themselves in the War of Independence. The new

state was to be shaped by the settlement pegs driven into the soil at places like

Hanita, on the Lebanese border, Tirat Zvi in the Beit She'an Valley and Yad

Mordechai on the Gaza approaches. Militarily, the settlements played the key

blocking role envisioned for them. Only a handful of the far-flung nekudot fell to

Arab attack.

Economically, the object of the settlements was to make the Jewish yishuv

as self-sufficient In food as possible. It was a modest goal compared to the achievements which have made Israel one of the foremost agricultural innovators in the

world. Today, the productivity of Israel's farmers is among the highest in the

world•5 per cent a year.

Socially•and this was the initial impetus of the Zionist programme•the object

of rural settlement was to create a new Jew, a man of the soil, free of the mentality of the Diaspora. Here too a success of epic proportions has been achieved.

By the eve of the Six Day War close to 600 farming settlements had absorbed

not only city dwellers from the West but tens of thousands of immigrants from

Islamic countries with no agricultural skills and little education.

"In one generation," says Weitz of the latter, "a deep, amazing transformation took place. We achieved something deemed to be impossible." The bulk of

these immigrant settlements now stand on their own feet economically, and a

new Israel-bred generation is beginning to take over.

As magnificent as these successes have been, the past few years have brought

new realities which require a totally new approach to rural settlement, says

Weitz, Militarily, exposed settlements are more of a burden than an asset when

Israel's armies rely on highly mobile armoured forces. Politically, says Weitz,

Israel cannot expect friends to support its claim to territory just because it has

built settlements on it. But settlements can buttress Israel's claim to territory

while it can demonstrate to he vital to its security needs.

Instead of isolated nekudot, settlements are now built in clusters (eshkolot)

which can sustain a high level of technical, cultural and social services.

Economically, the very success of Israeli farming had, until recently, seemed

to preclude the need for any more agricultural settlements, since the growth

in productivity was higher than the growth in local consumption. However, the

development in the past five years of "super-specialized" farming and "controlled agriculture" involving glasshouses and other enclosed structures has

opened what Weitz says are "possibilities no one ever dreamed of" in the growth
131

of winter vegetables for the tables of Europe. The small amount of water and

land needed to support a family at a high standard with this kind of farming

would have seemed fantastic five years ago, says Weitz.

These developments permit him to envision 150 new settlements on what had

seemed until a few years ago the sandy wastes of the northwestern Negev and

Rafiah approaches. Unlike mixed farming, this is a type of agriculture requiring

very high investments and a high level of skill.

The most far-reaching change in rural settlement has nothing to do with agriculture. It is the concept of the industrial village. Although it may seem a prosaic

innovation, Weitz believes it offers a solution not only to a specific Israeli problem, but to some of the most fundamental problems of Western civilization.

The concept was developed in the Settlement Department. In its search for

methods of establishing settlements in areas like the hill country of the Galilee

where there was insufficient arable land and water for agriculture. The industrial villages•or kafatim, in their Hebrew anagram•would be organized on a

cooperative basis like a moshav shitufi. Their commonly owned resource, however, would not be fields and orchards but a plant or plants in an industrial park

central to a number of kafatim. These industries would be based on electronics,

computers, optics and other operations which could be managed on a small scale.

More than a dozen kafatim are already built or under construction.

Since the Industrial Revolution, says Weitz, Western society has been "an

ever-moving society" as technological changes alter traditional occupational

structures and people are obliged to move in order to find work. It is also an ever

urbanizing society with the cities becoming less and less livable. In the process,

says Weitz, family and community have been replaced by an amorphous society.

"The basis of society•the nuclear family•is being destroyed and the signs of

nihilism are increasing. Look at Sweden. They have everything and don't know

what to do. Religion is gone and the family structure is gone. A mortal stands

naked and asks questions he should never have to ask•who am I, where am I

going?"

The model of a new society represented by the kafat, Weitz believes, offers a

way out of the blind alley of super-urbanization and rootlessness. The kafat permits a wide choice of occupational opportunities while maintaining geographical

stability for the individual and family. It also offers a new style of life for persons weary of the city•a rural life based on mutual help and equality. Regional

organization would permit a high level of amenities commensurate with the needs

of the population that would seek out this type of living.

"We are on the verge," says Weitz, "of giving the world something more farreaching than the kibbutz or moshav."

A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ABOUT ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

SEPTEMBER 5, 1977.

REQUEST MADE To ESTABLISH LOCAL COUNCIL IN KIBYAT-ARBA

(By Haaretz correspondent in Jerusalem)

Member of Knesset Mosheh Katzav (Likud) transferred into the hands of the

ministers of Interior and Security, a request made by 150 residents of Kiryat

Arba to establish there a local council and hold municipal elections.

M. K. Katzav noted in his request that "Due to the special status granted to

Kiryat Arba and to government policy, their request is quite justified." Kiryat

Arba is presently governed by a directorate appointed by the ministries of

Security and of Internal Affairs.

SEPTEMBER 15, 1977.

HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES INTERESTED IN PURCHASING APARTMENTS IN YAMIT

(By Davar economic correspondent)

Hundreds of families are interested in purchasing apartments in Yamit.

75 candidates have already been listed for housing.

"Shikun Upituah"1company announced that registration of candidates for

apartments in Yamit, that is in Population Program, stage 2, is closed. The

1 A governmental company.
132

apartments will be ready to receive the candidates by the end of next year.

Requests of candidates to purchase or rent apartments will be individually considered by the committee for settling Yamit.

The candidates whose requests will be granted will receive loans, not linked

to the Dollar rate, of up to 100,000 IP and the possibility of receiving another

loan of up to 30,000 IP and a grant-in-aid of 25,000 IP.

The prices of apartments up for sale in Yamit range as follows : In a one-floor

building, the price of a three-room flat (75 sqm) is somewhere around 235,000

IP and for a 4-room flat (86 sqm)•270,000 IP; the price of a three-room cottage

(83 sqm) is 210,000 IP and for a 4-room cottage one may pay up to 230,000 IP.

SEPTEMBER 18, 1977.

RIVLIN : AKABS STEAL LAND IN THE GALILEE

Mr. Moshe Hivlin, chairman of the Jewish National Fund directorate, sounded

an alarm againsf'Theft of land by Arabs" in the Galilee and called the authorities to react by increasing Jewish involvement in the area.

In an interview given to the Saturday radio newsprogram (Yoman Hashavua)

Rivlin said that the alarm is not new and has been voiced by Jewish National

Fund officials before. "The land is burning right beneath our feet for there are

increasing attempts by Arabs to take land away by force and create facts on the

territory." The Jewish National Fund and other institutions should do well to

find the means and the resources to counteract this by preparing land for grazing

and for planting. If you plant•you establish ownership. And if you hesitate

someone else will have planted before you." Mr. Rivlin sees this as being one

of the most important tasks of the J.N.F.

Mr. Rivlin also attaches great importance to the work of the J.N.F. in the

South. As an example, he cited cases of land seizures by Arabs in the area

around Yatir,3an area to be shortly setled by Jews. Mr. Rivlin expressed the

hope that another settlement will soon fill the portentous gap between Yatir and

Beit-Kama. "We must, in practice, return those lands to the State of Israel,"

Mr. Rivlin emphasized.

Mr. Rivlin avoided a lengthy discussion over the question of land purchasing

in Judea and Samaria. "Concerning the purchases•the less we talk, the more

we shall be able to do," he declared and added that these land purchases cannot have any budgetary significance because one cannot know today what will

be available tomorrow. In any case, "The J.N.F. and other institutions must be

alert so as not to miss opportunities that flare up before us."

The commentator revealed that the unclassified budget of the J.N.F. allocated

2 million IP this year for the purchase of land beyond the green boundaries.

It is well-known, however, that the actual sums spent exceed the explicit allocations by far.

In any event, ample resources will always be found to finance opportunities

that "flare-up" in the same way there will never be a closed budget for immigration.11

Mr. Rivlin further stated in an answer to a question, that the J.N.F will

continue to oppose government plans to allow the purchase of land by private

individuals in selected urban areas in the occupied territories. There is no

room for an ideological shift within the J.N.F. he said, the land belongs to

the people, to the Jewish people.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1977.

GUSH-EMTJNIM Is RENOVATING A HOUSE IN NABLUS CURRENTLY USED BY THE

SECURITY FORCES

(By Tuflk Huri)

Gush Emunim are starting today to renovate "Beit Yaakov" in Nablus, in

order to use it in the future as a field-school4and a base for settlements planned

in the area.

2

In the southern part of the West Bank.

"The reason for the security of Mr. Rivlin that money will be always found, is that the

USA will always give. Specially so for settling the occupied territories, which they nominally oppose I. Shahak.

* A well-known first step to a settlement. I. Shahak.
133

Ahron Pick, famous for organizing the march from the Hermon to the Suez

Canal will oversee the renovation. Rebuilding will take three weeks and the

field-school will be opened immediately afterwards.

It should be noted, that past attempts at settling "Beit-Yaakov" notably by

Kabbi Cahana and his men were resisted by the authorities. Gush Emuniin will

carry-out the renovation while the house is still occupied by the security forces.

The Movement For A Different Zionism, centered in Jerusalem, sent a telegram yesterday to the Prime Minister, Menahem Begin, protesting the cooperation between Gush Emunim and the security forces in the occupied territories. Such cooperation finds an expression, they declared, in the renovation

of the house while it is still occupied by the I.D.F. soldiers.

The leaders of the Movement For A Different Zionism, state in their telegram

that such acts form a stumbling block on the way to achieving peace and exhibit

disregard of the existence of another people within the territorial boundaries

of Israel.

SEPTEMBEE 29, 1977.

FlELD-SCHOOLS TO BE OPENED IN YAMIT AND IN KATZKIN

The Society For the Preservation of Nature is soon to announce the opening

of Field-Schools in Yamit, and, half a year later, in Katzrin.

The number of Field-Schools will then reach 15•from the Golan Heights

to "Tzukei David" near the monastery of Santa-Katerina and "Naama" near

Oflra: The building of two new schools, one in Har-Tavor and one in Maale

Ephraim will begin in the near future.

The capacity of the field school in Har-Gilo (near Bethlehem) will be doubled

this year and will reach 240. The field school in Har-Giloh will be the first to

reach the second stage of building while the rest of the schools are still able to

receive only 100-120 students.

There are 300 workers in field schools today, one third of which are guides,

one third temporary guides (female soldiers) and one third research workers,

rangers and administrative workers.

These details are revealed in the report presented to the directorate of the

Society for the Preservation of Nature, that convened yesterday in Har-Giloh.

The report further stated that trips organized by the Society will include,

this year, 275,000 people•in comparison with 22,000 last year and 180,000 in

1975-76.

There are 22,000 members in the Society of which a third are students and

soldiers. There are, in addition, 250 collective bodies in the Society, the majority

of which are kibbutzim.

The number of subscribers to the Society publications is 41,000: 24,000 subscribe to "Teva Vearetz"•a bi-monthly for adults; 7,000 to "Sal'it"•a monthly

for adolescents and 10,000 to "Pashosh"•a monthly for children, presently in

its fourth year.

OCTOBER 5, 1977.

A GUSH EMUNIM DETACHMENT IS CONSOLIDATING A SETTLEMENT IN THE MILITARY

CAMP OF SHOMRON : A SCHOOL WILL BE ESTABLISHED AND INDUSTRIES WILL

BEGIN TO OPERATE

(By Davar correspondent in Netanya)

Members of a "Gush-Emunim" detachment in the military camp Shomron in

Sebastia celebrated Simchat-Torah yesterday. They were joined by their wives

and children and by many Netanya residents, supporters of Gush-Emunim.

It is possible, that already this week, the wives and children of the settlers

will join the men in the tents given to them by the I.D.F. Later they will transfer

Into their own tents.

The members will eat in a common mess-hall, which they hope to establish

within ten days in a prefabricated building. They also hope to be provided with

prefabs for residence before the winter.

During the first stage the settlers will continue to work at their previous jobs.

The Army is prepared to employ them as salaried civilians, especially as cooks

and blacksmiths. When the wives and the 70 children arrive a kindergarten and

a primary school will be established. The children will be taught by members

of the detachment.
134

Avraham Nevo, one of the activists in this group of settlers said that they are

planning to establish a study-center for the Shomron which will give classes in

archeology, history and geography for high school students.' The classes will be

taught by university graduates and professional guides from the Society for the

Preservation of Nature. The study-center will accommodate groups of students

for intensive study seminars. They also plan to transfer industries owned by the

members to the camp. These include textiles, factories, cartons and electronics

industries.

OCTOBER 6, 1977.

A GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WILL RECOMMEND, THIS MONTH, THE SIMPLIFICATION

OP LAND-PUBCHASINO PROCEDURES IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA

(By Nahum Barnea, Davar correspondent)

An inter-ministerial commission, appointed by the Likud government will submit, by the end of the month, its suggestions on the simplification of the procedures of land-trading in the occupied territories. This information was revealed

by the director-general of the Ministry of Justice in an answer to a question

posed by a "Davar" correspondent.

These suggestions are intended to pave the way towards private speculation

in land, pending only on the permission of the government.

It should be recalled that one of the points elaborated in the Likud election

platform was the abolition of the Labor government's resolution to forbid the

purchase of land in the occupied territories.

The commission, headed by the director-general of the Ministry of Justice,

Meir Gabai includes representatives from the Ministry of Security and from

the Land Authority. The commission was appointed about 6 weeks ago. The

recommendations submitted by the commission will simplify the purchase of land

by the State.

At present, land trading is carried out through the mediation of a company

called "Heimanuta" * which is registered as a foreign company in the flies of the

flrm-reeistrar in Ramal'ah. The new regulations will he still subordinated to the

Jordanian law but the procedures will be greatly simplified and the actual trading

will take place under the auspices of the government, rather than through

private companies.

If the government makes the decision to keep to its promises of election-eve

and permit private individuals to enjoy the new regulations, the political consequences of the commission's recommendations will have a far-reaching politiril

impact.

The first to enjoy these regulations will be a company called "Yariv," at the

head of which, stood, until a short while ago. the Minister of Commerce and

Industry, Y. Horovitz. Immediately after the Six-D«y War, "Yariv" purchased

hundreds of dunams near the village Jib near Nebi-Samuel, north of Jerusalem

and paid 200.000 IP. The deal was carried-out in secret, through the mediation

of the village Muchtar and is still not legally registered. If the government

decides to "de-freeze" the regulations, "Yariv" will immediately attempt to

register the land legally. It is estimated that the company will reap a profit of

millions of pounds.

Yigal Horovitz' son, Yoni Horovitz, who presently heads the company told

"Davar" correspondent that he hopes that the Likud government will realize

its pre-election promises.

OCTOBER 7, 1977.

TEN DETACHMENTS OF SETTLERS ORGANIZED OVERSEAS•To THE GALILEE, PITHATRAFIAH (RAFAH APPROACHES) AND TO THE ARAVA

(By Davar correspondent in Jerusalem)

The joint settlement committee of the government and the Jewish Agency

convened yesterday in Jerusalem to hear the report of its chairman, Minister

6

In the Israeli nubile schools. I. Shahak.

• Which really belongs to the Jewish National Fund. I. Sbahak.
135

Ariel Sharon concerning the admission of a Gush-Emunim detachment into the

military base "Shomron".

The committee decided to notify the bodies concerned to give the settlers all

the help they may need with regard to housing, community services and work.

The head of the public-relations department in the Jewish Agency, Avraham

Shankar asked the chairman whether the ad-hoc settlement committee of ministers was intended to get around the joint settlement committee. Minister Sharon

explained the circumstances leading up to the creation of this ad-hoc committee

and the background of its decision to admit detachments of Gush-Emunim settlers

into military bases. When leaving the meeting, Sharon added that the committee

was set-up in order to decide on certain sensitive issues that cannot be dealt with

in the joint committee.

The committee further decided to change the status of Yamit from an urban

center to a city, and ordered the Ministry of Housing to draw up an urban contour-plan. It was further decided to draw-up settlement plans for the Arava,

for Pithat Rafiah and for the Galilee, in order to accommodate 10 detachments of

settlers organized overseas.

The settlement committee of the Zionist Federation announced yesterday that

so long as Gush Emunim settlers remain in military camps they will be under

the care of the Ministry of Security and no civilian organization will be permitted to involve itself with them. The Settlement Committee is presently working on a plan to provide "moral aid" to the permanent settlements of Gush

Emunim in the West Bank (Ofra and Alon Moreh).

It appears, that detachment "Dotan" of Gush Emunim will be the next one to

be admitted into a military camp for settlement. Dotan will soon transfer to the

Sanur police station. It is hoped that detachment Beit-El will follow suit and

settle at the base in Beit-El.

GUSH-EMUNIM : WE HAVE MANAGED TO OPERATE IN COORDINATION WITH THE

GOVERNMENT

Gush-Emunim spokesman recalled, yesterday, the words of Minister Zevulun

Hammer quoted in "Davar" that he prefers the establishment of large, semiurban settlements 'based on industry than small settlements, spread out over a

large territory, each comprising a small number of families. He added, however,

that these small settlements will serve as the beginning of large scale settlements.

The spokesman further said that the government must be allowed to take all

decisions concerning settlements and that Gush-Emunim has been making the

effort and has been quite successful in coordinating its actions with the

government.

OCTOBER 9, 1977.

EXTENSIVE CONSTRUCTION WORK IS BEING CARRIED-OUT IN THE "TEMPORARY"

GUSH-EMUNIM CAMP IN ''SHOMRON" MILITARY BASE

(By Amir Shapira, Al-Hamishmar correspondent)

Construction work valued at tens of thousands of liras has been carried-out

ever since the eve of Simhat-Torah in a military base in the Shomron where

settlers of Gush-Emunim were to be temporarily sheltered.

Military contractors and construction work-teams have been preparing the

land around the military base so that the settlement will be able to sustain an

independent living.

I visited the base on the weekend and witnessed heavy machinery leveling

the many dunams allotted to Gush-Emunim. Work on the temporary houses

which will serve to shelter the settlers until a more permanent residence area

be built, was begun today. The main gate to the base was also changed and a

new entrance constructed, one that will open directly into the settlers' camp.

FROM THE BUDGET OP THE MINISTRY OP SECURITY

Contracted work-teams are preparing the buildings which will house the

services of the settlers. All preparatory work, including the equipment, is carriedout with the budget of the Ministry of Security. The estimated cost, not including
136

the building equipment which is the property of the I.D.F. is tens of thousands

of liras.

The prefabricated houses which will serve as school classrooms, are to arrive

today and will be placed in the center of the camp.

NOT FROM THE SETTLERS' EQUIPMENT

It should be noted that none of the equipment to be seen is part of the equipment prepared by Gush-Emunlm on the eve of the settlement. The equipment

was given Gush-Emunim by the I.D.F. The workers with whom I spoke could

not tell me of some basic plan according to which they were working and no one

could say exactly how many houses they intend to build or what kind of services

will be given to the settlers.

MORE THAN ONE DETACHMENT?

According to one guess, the camp under construction is intended to support

more than one settling detachment, in particular those who have not been allotted a definite settling zone. What this amounts to, is that the camp will serve

as some sort of permanent training camp for the detachments of Gush-Emunim

at least until their status will be changed from that of civilian workers for the

military. ...

OCTOBER 10, 1977.

A NEW SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA OF LATRUN

Kfar Ruth, a new settlement belonging to the Moshav Movement came into

existence on the weekend in the area of Latrun, near Beit-Horon, beyond the green

boundary.

The families will spend a while in temporary housing shelters before a permanent settlement is established. The settlers themselves, whether already inhabiting

the area or not, are young couples from moshavs in the Judean mountains.

Two more settlements are planned in that area. The first, Moshav Shilat will

be built across from the military post Shilta, which gained fame during the battles

over Latrun (in 1948). Detachment Shilat is due to arrive sometime this week.

The settlement will belong to the Movement of Zionist Workers (Tnuat Haoved

Hatzioni) of the Independent Liberal Party.

The foundations of a second settlement are also being laid, while the settlers

themselves, who belong to Agudat Israel, are being sheltered in Moshav Mevo

Modi'yn, established several years ago in the area of Latrun.

All three settlements were authorized by the previous government

It should be noted, that all four settlements, including Nevo Modi'yn are located

on the eastern boundaries of the Ayalon Valley, which was considered no man's

land until the Six Day War. The new road, presently under construction from the

coastal plain to Jerusalem, will pass very near these settlements.

OCTOBER 11, 1977.

THE BEDOUINS IN THE NEGEV : WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED

The Bedouins in the Negev, especially in the east and north are prepared to

live in agricultural villages. They refuse, however, to settle the 6 villages offered

to them, because the areas will soon become concentrations of cheap labor and

within a generation will be transformed into centers of hostilities directed towards

Israel•These statements were made by members of the Committee of Bedouin

Bights in the Negev, at a press-conference in Tel-Aviv.

The Secretary of the committee, Nuri El-Ukbi, claimed that after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Bedouins were evacuated from their lands for security reasons. In their newly-acquired territory, they built huts to sustain their

living and now these huts are being demolished. "We will not tolerate the policy

of the Minister of Agriculture, Ariel Sharon, who ordered, even yesterday, the

demolition of 7 houses."

The Bedouins will not budge an inch from their lands, they will stand up to

their rights and will refuse to settle in these work-camps, the spokesman added.

He demanded that the government draw up plans for agricultural settlements

for the Bedouins.
137

OCTOBEB 11, 1977.

Moshav Keshet is presently under construction in Tel-Ataly'ia, near Hushania

in the Golan Heights. The mashov members, all from Gush-Emunim, settled

first in Kuneitra from where they were transferred to Mashtela and then to

Hushania military base. They were to be moved on to the inner part of the

country, a plan they stubbornly refused. Their future settlement is presently

being constructed and by completion of the first stage of construction will consist

of 50 apartments.

OCTOBEB 11,1977.

TZIPORI : WE EXPLAINED TO GUSH-EMUNIM THAT WE SHALL REACT STRONGLY TO

ANY "MIS-CONDUCT"

(ByTufikHuri)

Placing the settlers in military bases in Judea and Samaria is intended in order

to keep a "low profile" as regards colonization. The decision is a consequence of

various political constraints•said yesterday deputy Minister of Security,

Mordechai Tzipori, in a conversation with reporters in Tel-Aviv.

The Deputy-Minister, also said that it is quite possible that sometime in the

future, the army will evacuate the bases and the place will be granted civilian

status.

THE CELEBBATION WAS CALLED OFF

The Deputy to the Minister of Security revealed that "From the moment it

became clear that the subject of settlements in Judea and Samaria will be under

the authority of the Prime Minister we explained to Gush-Emunim two fundamental points:

If their aims are serious, then they share a common denominator with the

government.

We would like Israel to be country of law and justice that operates in accordance with the laws enacted by the Knesset. Under no condition are we prepared to

allow for "misconduct," and we shall react strongly to any act questioning the

authority of the government.

The deputy-minister said that ever since these two points were explained there

was no misconduct, excepting the settlement of Ofra.

Tzipori further said that the men from detchment "Shomron" who were admitted into the Shomron military base intended to hold a large celebration at the

end of Simhat-Tora.

"We forbade Gush-Emunim to hold the celebration and explained that only the

settlers and their families would be allowed to commemorate the occasion."

WORKERS FOB THE I.D.F.

Tzipori elaborated the condition, under which Gush-Emunim would be permitted to enter the military bases in Judea and Samaria. The legal advisors to the

government and to the Ministry of Security have drawn-up a document that is to

be signed by every head of family wishing to settle one of the six military bases

offered to Gush-Emunim. The document defines the legal status of the settlers as

civilians in the service of the I.D.F.

The Ministry of Security will assume no responsibility as to the security and

welfare of the settlers. Any harm that will come by them will be negotiated by

the settlers themselves with the various insurance companies.

The settlers will be obliged to carry out all military commands and requests

of the officer-in-charge of the camp where they live.

Admission into the military bases will be conditioned on the settlers' signing the

document.

The settlers will help the I.D.F. to solve its problems of man-power shortage.

The I.D.F. will sign six-month contracts with every settler. Everyone signing

the contracts will be granted the status of a civilian working for the military. He

will receive a full salary. The financial resources with which winter shelters will

be built, will come from the various settling bodies. In the near future, settlers will

occupy six additional camps.

Camp Yossef, near Ein-Fara ;

Camp Sanur, on the Sebastia-Jenin road (already next week) ;

Nebi-Salah, near Ramallah;

Camp Giv'on, north of Jerusalem:
138

Camp Beit-El; and

•Camp Horon, on the Latrun-Ramallah Toad.

The government will be assumed to authorize another settlement.

The other detachments of Gush-Emunim for whom accommodation in military

camps has not been found, will have to wait for the solution of their problems,

maybe through the authorization of their original settlement destinations.

Tzipori also revealed that the ministerial committee concerning settlements,

requested a budgetary increment of 100 million IP for the acceleration and

facilitation of settlement plans designed for this year.

OCTOBEB 12, 1977.

BUILDINGS TO HOUSE INDUSTRY, TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN NEW SETTLEMENTS IN

JUDEA, SAMABIA, YAMIT AND ON THE GOLAN

(By Davar economic correspondent in Jerusalem)

The interministerial committee for the development of new settlements decided

yesterday to authorize the construction of buildings in an area of 10,000 sqm.

to house industries in new settlements in Judea, Samaria, Yamit district and

on the Golan Heights. Planning and foundation work will begin already during

this fiscal year.

The chairman of the committee, Deputy Minister of Industry, Yitzhak Peretz

said, that the new settlements will receive all the financial aid the government

grants to development towns. During the first years of these settlements' existence, the financial aid will be of high priority, considering their particular valuable locations and conditions in their area.

Following talks held with secretaries of the settlements in the Shomron, it

was decided, that the authorized bodies look into the plans of industrialists requesting permission to establish industries in Kadum, Mesha (Pe'erim) and

Ofra, even before the settlements themselves receive a permanent status. Simultaneously, plans will be drawn-up for the exact construction of these buildings.

CLASSROOMS IN KADUM7 WILL BE RENOVATED

The committee decided that the Ministry of Industry and the department of

Village Construction in the Ministry of Housing and Construction will aid the

settlers of Alon-Moreh in the reconstruction of the unfinished buildings which

temporarily house their industry.

The secretariat of the detachment was requested to prepare and present a

detailed plan.

A decision was also reached with the Ministry of Education to provide the

necessary resources in order to improve and renovate the classrooms of the

school in Kadum. Shlomo Avner, head of the department of Village Construction announced that by the end of November construction of 7 classrooms will

have been completed.

The Ministry of Industry and the Department of Village Construction will also

build a manufacturing center in Ofra. During the present time, however, only

planning and ground-work will be undertaken, and a 1200 sqm. building for

industry will be constructed.

The inter-ministerial committee decided that within a month, registration will

be opened to persons wishing to settle in the urban center of Maaleh-Ephraim.

A committee to supervise the development of the area was appointed, chairmanship was given to Eliahu Ati'eh, their advisor of industrialization.

OCTOBER 12, 1977.

DOTAN DETACHMENT ADMITTED INTO SANUR POLICE-STATION NEAR JENIN

(By Amir Shapira, Al-Hamishmar correspondent)

A pioneer detachment of settlers, was admitted yesterday into the Sanur

police-station, south of Jenin, and began preparations and construction work

in order to facilitate the admission of their families at the beginning of next

' Now called Alon-Moreh.
139

week. This is the second detachment of Gush-Emunim to enter into a military

base, according to the agreement with the government.

Gush-Emunim spokesman denied yesterday rumors about agitation among

rank and file members of the Gush, following the announcement of Mordechai

Tzipori, Deputy Minister of Security. Tzipori announced that settlers wishing

to inhabit military bases will have to sign a document placing themselves under

military authority. This document was prepared last week by the legal advisors

to the government and to the Ministry of Security. The secretariat of GushEmunim knew of the document 'being prepared. The document stipulates two

main points: the admission of settlers into military bases will be conditioned

upon their placing themselves under military regulations including military law.

(b) The I.D.F. is freed from any responsibility as to the welfare of the settlers.

Yesterday, when the document became public, there were those who turned to

the secretariat demanding an open discussion on the subject.

The Gush-Emunim secretariat, meeting today, will probably discuss the issue

and the Gush spokesman, who feels that this document "is not bad" told me that

in his judgment it will be possible to convince the settlers to accept the document

at least de-facto.

The deputy Minister of Security, who announced the existence of the document

to journalists, emphasized that anyone refusing to sign it will be removed from

the base. It appears, that the secretariat of Gush Emunim will pass a resolution

binding the whole movement to the document and will not permit individuals to

sign or refuse to sign it.

OCTOBEB 16,1977.

UNDEB COVER OF DARKNESS, THE JERICHO DETACHMENT MOVED TO A LOCATION 5 KM.

NORTH OF MAALEH-EDUMIM

(By Yosef Waxman)

Another detachment of Gush-Emunim, about which nothing was known before,

settled in Nahal-Tekoa in the Jordan Valley. The coordinator of settlements

appointed by Minister Arik Sharon, told Maariv correspondent that one GushEmunim detachment did, in fact join the settlement of Tekoa, which is inhabited

by the Nahal. The coordinator, Deputy Colonel (reserves) Uri Bar-On, noted that

the settlement of Tekoa was established in the days of the former government.

Maariv correspondent learned that this detachment consists of 20 young men

and women, immigrants from the Soviet-Union." This detachment is not included

among the 11 settling squads for which Gush-Emunim asked government authorization, and among the 6 detachments who are to settle in military bases*

THE SETTLERS IN SANUR

Shimon Ravid, the general-director of the settlement department in the Jewish

Agency and the Zionist Federation, told Maariv correspondent that his department is handling this group of settlers in the same manner that it handles Nahal

servicemen. He added that the future status of the settlement is still uncertain.

The department is presently studying the area in order to determine its future.

Another detachment of Gush-Emunim•"Dotan" is moving into the Sanur police

station today.

A pioneer group of settlers, moved in last week and is to be joined by the rest of

the detachment today.

The settlers will not live in the actual police building. Mr. Uri Bar-On says that

until a permanent solution is found, the settlers will live in tents and in caravans.

Mr. Bar-On further stated that 5 caravans will arrive today in Ofra. These caravans will house the settlers of Ein-Shiloh. More will arrive at the end of the week.

THEY WILL WORK ON THE BEACH IN KALIA

Last Thursday, the settlers of detachment Jericho moved to an area called

Tabak-Reish, which is to be the permanent location of Maale-Edumim. TabakReish is located about 5 Km. north of the Edumim plateau, directly above Jericho

and the Jordan Valley.

The decision to move the detachment to Tabak-Reish was taken suddenly last

Thursday night and was immediately carried-out. Negotiations were held for

8 Who are, because of this, helped specially, by the U.S. funds allocated to housing immigrants from the U.S.S.R. I. Shahak.
140

about two weeks previously and it is unknown why Gush-Emunim decided to

implement Its plans under cover of darkness. Last Friday tents and caravans were

set up and were soon occupied by 20 families and another 20 single men and

women.

' Mr. Uri Bar-On says that the members of Detachment Jericho will develop

Kalia beach in the Dead Sea.

The members of the detachment said that they consider their present location

as temporary. They are interested in settling in the town of Jericho proper.

OCTOBER 18,1977.

•FOLLOWING AN ORDER BY TZIPORI: DETACHMENT SHOMBON•INTO MILITABY

BARRACKS

(By Haaretz correspondent in Jerusalem)

Due to the heavy rains, Deputy Minister of Security, Mordechai Tzipori

ordered the members of detachment Shomron, who are presently living in tents

in Kadum, to enter military barracks.

It was announced that the members of the detachments asked the Ministry of

Security to permit them to move into Sebastia, their future permanent location.

OCTOBEB 20,1977.

GUSH-EMUNIM SECRETARIAT IS DEBATING THE FUTURE OP THE SETTLEMENTS

(By Davar correspondent in Jerusalem)

A debate was held yesterday in the secretariat of Gush-Emunim whether

the movement should continue to settle more areas or concern itself with consolidating the existing ones. No decision was taken.

80 families and about 40 single persons, members of Gush Emunim settlement

detachments are presently living in three military bases in the West-Bank. The

settlers of "Karnei Shomron" moved into buildings inside the military base,

Kadum, following the heavy rains that hit the area.

Sanur, near Jenin, is inhabited by detachment Dotan, detachment Shomron is

in Camp Shomron. In Ofra, near Ramallah, detachment "Shiloh" is awaiting permission to settle independently.

A unit of soldiers is engaged in rebuilding the police station in Nebi-Salah,

preparing it for the settlers who are soon to arrive. Detachment "Beit-El" was

dispersed until their date of settlement is agreed upon.

OCTOBER 20,1977.

ALL 12 DETACHMENTS MENTIONED IN THE "TEMPORARY PLAN" WILL SETTLE IN

THE NEXT FEW MONTHS•SAY SOURCES IN GUSH-EMUNIM

(By Yehuda Litani, Haaretz correspondent)

Sources in Gush-Emunim revealed that within the next few months all 12

detachments mentioned in the "temporary plan" will settle in Judea and Samaria.

The settlers will be housed in military bases (which, Gush Emunim hopes the

I.D.F. will evacuate after a while) or in Nahal settlements, that will be handed

over to Gush-Emunim over a period of time.

Up till now, only one settlement has been established. In accordance with the

plan•Yatir•in the southern section of Mt. Hebron. Detachment Jericho moved

last week to a location near Maaleh-Edumim (which will be their permanent

settlement). Detachment Karnei-Shomron is in Camp Kadum, Dotan in Sanur

police station, Shomron in Camp Shomron and several more detachments will

enter military bases in the next few weeks. It was announced that there are 80

families and 40 singles in military bases and in recognized settlements.
141

SHARON PAID A VISIT

The members of detachment Karnel Shomron moved, yesterday. Into military

barracks in Kadum after a consistent refusal to do so in spite of the rains. They

previously demanded to be allowed to move into their permanent location•in

Sebastia. Minister of Agriculture, Ariel Sharon, paid a visit to Kadum on Tuesday to see the condition under which the settlers are being maintained.

DEBATE

A debate took place yesterday in the secretariat of Gush Emuniin. The issue

debated was the plans of the movement for the next few months. There are several members who side with placing all available resources at the disposal of the

existing 12 settlements while there are others who feel that the aim of the movement should be the immediate settlement of all available territory. No decision

was reached.

OCTOBER 21,1977.

THIRTEEN INDUSTRIES ARE IN OPERATION IN THE PLATEAU OF BDUMIM

(By Israel Tomer)

Two years ago the plateau of Edumim began developing. Today, there are

already 13 industries in operation. Several more are to be established shortly.

This information was given by Shlomo Blakind, the director-general of the

Jerusalem Economic Company, a firm actively involved in developing the area

and maintaining the new industries.

Among the newly-founded industries are metal works, a factory for electronic

computer systems, electricity works and a factory producing hydraulic lifts.

A dairy for cheeses and milk products will be opened in a short while.

"The transfer of industries"•said the director-general•"Can be carried out

quite rapidly due to the fact that the Economic Company is preparing a large

reserve of buildings that can house the industries."

The factories established in the area enjoy, among other things, the status of

"a Development area Type A", which grants them services provided by the

municipality of Jerusalem. The Edumim plateau is located about 10 Km. beyond

the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and about 15 Km. from the center of

town.

CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IN HAMBA, JORDAN VALLEY, IS COMPLETE

(By Yoel Dar, Davar correspondent)

The construction of a primary school has reached completion in Moshav Hamra

in the Jordan Valley. This is the first Hebrew school in the valley. There are

seven classrooms in the building. The head of the Ministry of Education and

Culture in the northern district, Yosef Levi, said that a junior-high school should

be built in the valley.

20-488 O - 78 - 10
142

AN ESSAY IN MISINFORMATION

- how the State Department and

the U .S . Embassy in Tel Aviv

have misled President Carter

about Israel's violation of

Palestinian human rights.

Issued by

the Internationr' Committee for Palestinian Human Rights

16 rueAugereau 75007 Paris

SEPTEMBER 1977
143

At the beginning of this year the State Department, in preparation for

President Carter's initiative in giving human rights pror.iinence in American

foreign policy, produced a survey examining how human rights w are being

observed in a number of countries.

The section dealing with Isra-.I is a diehonest document, full of untruths

and hMf-truths and patently designed to assure the President that, in difficult

circumstances, Israel was making a commendable, even if not wholly

successful, effort to provide for a--1 observe the human rights of Palestinian

Arabs living under Israeli rule, both in Israel proper and in the occupied

territories. Presumably the respinsibility for this essay in misinforming

their President rests with officials in the American Hmbassy in Tel Aviv and

in the State Department in Washington.

The survey starts by pointing out the need to distinguish between the Arab

minority in Israel and the Arab inhabitants of th~ wip'"1*•ritories. It then

provides a note on the "Political Situation" by way of introduction to the survey

of human rights issuer. It deals with "Israel Proper" un-'ar the headings

"Legal Situation" and "Observance of internationally recognised Human Rights",

the latter being subdivided into "Integrity of the Person" and "Other Important

Freedoms". The same pattern is then repeated with "Israel's Occupied

Territories". The survey concludes with a section entitled "Other Human Rights

Reporting".

The foV'-wing commentary "uotes passac<=s from the survey with parallel

notes on each passage. It ends with some general remarks.

contd /2
144

POLITICAL SITUATION

Quotation Comment

"Despite the protection of

the rights of the Arab

minority under Israel's laws,

and governmental and private

efforts made ouring the 29

years of the state to

encourage Israel's Arabs

to think of themselves as

part of the society, the

Arab minority has felt

more or less alien to

Israel and has not considered itself to have full

equality."

The implication is clear: Israel has done its best to

accommodate the Arab minority but they have not

responded and subjectively persist in regarding

themselves as alien and unequal. As a corrective to

this sweeping exoneration of Israel in its treatment of

its Arab minority, here is what Mrs. Shulamlt Aloni,

a highly respected Member of the Knesset and leader

of the Civil Rights Movement in Israel, had to say in

Yediot Aharonot of 10 October 1975:

"In the twenty eight years since the creation

of the State of Israel we have not yet learned

that one should behave towards Arabs as

citizens with equal rights and duties and

treat their problems like those of all other

citizens, directly and without discrimination."

Other Israeli Jews have criticised in similarly

outspoken terms the discrimination practised in Israel

against the Arab minority. In January 1977 Doron

Rosenblum of Haaretz interviewed Shmuel Toledano,

who was about to retire after serving for 10 years as

Adviser on Arab Affairs to successive Israeli Prime

Ministers. After exploring some of the areas in which

there was discrimination against Arabs in Israel,

Rosenblum posed a blunt question: "Can we say,

unambiguously, that Israeli Arabs are second-class

citizens?" Toledano replied:

"Very unfortunately, we can. The only wise

course now is to create an atmosphere of

familiarity. If the present situation continues

and nothing is done, some unpleasant things

await us. Very soon there will be hundreds

of educated Arabs without work. An

contd /3
145

- 3 -

unemployed group like that is dynamite and

this isn't understood among us."

Such Israeli Jewish testimony is ignored or

brushed aside in the State Department's survey.

Far from encouraging Israel's Arabs to think of

themselves as part of Israeli society, the trend

of public policy in Israel sceiis to be towards

keeping Jews and Arabs apart, rather thr>.n inducing

them to mix. For example, on 13 January 1977

Yediot Aharonot reported that an Arab ejected from

hts house in the expanded Jewish quarter of the

Old City applied for a flat in that quarter, but was

turned down. The report continued:

"Yesterday all the family's belongings were

removed from the house and transferred to the

storage rooms of the 'Society for the

Rehabilitation and Development of the Jewish

Quarter'. The family refused to help with

the removal, but did not offer violent

resistance."

The Arab house was demolished.

"Although SC Resolution

242 of November, 1967 calls

for Israeli withdrawal from

occupied territories only in

the context of an overall

peace settlement that would

also recognize Israel's right

to exist, the continuing

occupation of these Arab- t

populated areas has

exacerbated criticism of

Israel in the United

Nations and other interThis suggests that the grounds for criticism are

simply that Israel has remained in occupation of Arab

lard pending a peace settlement. That is a

misleading over-simplification. The main grounds

for criticism are not so much that Israel has

maintained its occupation pending a peace settlement

but that it has abused its posit!in as the occupying

power in order to change the status of East Jerusalem

and to settle Israeli citizens in the occupied

territories with a view to incorporating them

permanently in the Str.te of Israel. In

pursuing this usurpation of Arab lands, Israel has

illegally dispossessed Arab landowners and subjected

contd. ./4
146

national forums." the Arab population generally to harsh and

oppressive treatment.

According to Ha'aretz of 2 March 1977,

"Between 1976 and 1977 the Israeli Land

Authority purchased over 3,500 dunam of

land for 8 million Israeli pounds. It also

acquired the rights over another 32,000

dunam and is now negotiating the purchase

of and rights over 60,000 dunam. The land

is largely intended for settlement by

Israelis and is situated in the Jordan valley."

In other words, it was Arab land, and much of it

has been expropriated.

ISRAEL PROPER

LEGAL SITUATION

"Israeli law and practice

provide for all the rights

and liberties traditional in

Western democracies. Its

internal practices accord

generally with standards

observed in Western

democracies."

As a general statement this is simply untrue. To be

sure, the bulk of the legislation in Israel does not

distinguish overtly and in so many words between

Israeli Jewish and Israeli Arab citizens. But in its

practical application discrimination against the Arab

citizen is rife and entrenched. It Is most marked in

the ownership and use of land. A series of

confiscatory land laws has been enacted which are

Invoked against Arab landowners in order to deprive

them of their land for the benefit of Israeli Jews.

These laws are rarely. If ever, invoked against

Jewish citizens. Other laws deny Arabs any share in

Jewish-owned land and even prohibit them from

working or living on such land. By its charter the

Jewish National Fund, which has been designated as

the agent of the Government of Israel for the

acquisition and development of land, is required to

enforce discrimination against Arabs who are thus

contd /5
147

precluded from owning, leasing, cultivating or living

on land acquired by the Fund. '

Moreover, in one all-important respect there is

specific and overt discrimination in the legislation

itself. This is in regard to the basic rights of entry

into the country, residence there and acquisition of

citizenship. The notorious Law of Return admits into

Israel any Jewish immigrant, wherever he may have

been born, and automatically confers on him Israeli

nationality. The same rights are not extended to

non-Jews and particularly not to Palestinian Arabs,

even though they were born and had their homes in

the territory which became Israel. Even those

Palestinian Arabs who remained within Israel were

not granted citizenship as of right but had to apply

for naturalisation for which they had to satisfy

certain stringent requirements. The Law of

Nationality has deprived many thousands of Arabs

still living in Israel of the right of citizenship and

has rendered their children 'stateless'.

These are facts. They are abundantly documented

and recorded both in Israel and outside. Presumably

they must be known to the staff of the U.S. Embassy

in Tel Aviv. How then can the State Department in

the document here under discussion make the

assertions quoted above about Israeli law and practice

providing "for all the rights and liberties traditional

in Western democracies" and about the internal

practices in Israel according "generally with standards

observed in Western democracies"? In what

Western democracy are citizens prevented from

residing where they will because of their religion and

ethnic origin? Where are they precluded on those

contd /6
148

grounds from owning or working on land which is open

to their fellow citizens? Where in any Western

democracy is land systematically confiscated from

one ethnic group in order that it should be made

available to another?

OBSERVANCE OF INTERNATIONALLY

RECOGNISED HUMAN RIGHTS

A. Integrity of the Person

"Human rights relating to life, This again is untrue . Although t<-.e military

liberty, and the security of government which was Imposed on the Arab minority

person are observed in Israel in Israel's earlier years was abolished in 1966, the

proper, without distinction Defence (Emergency) Regulations have continued in

between Jews and Israeli- force (the powers being transferred from the military

citizen Arabs. Propagandistlc to the police) e.r-.d have been invoked against Israeli

charges of mistreatment of Arabs but scarcely ever against Israeli Jews. Under

Israeli Arabs in this sphere those Regulations many Israeli Arabs have been

are without foundation." detained or placed under hoi ise arrest or had their

movements restricted.

"The treatment of Israeli

citizens by the authorities

is humane, and prison

conditions In Israel are

satisfactory. Some Arab

citizens of Israel resorted to

violent demonstrations in

early 1976 for the first time

in the country's history, and

force was applied to quell

the disturbances."

The implication is that the Israeli authorities were

blameless and that Arabs reverted to violence

without cause or provocation.

In fact the disturbances of 1976 were not the first

in Israel's history. As long ago as 30 September 1971

a riot broke out in the Ashkelon prison. It was

extensively reported in the Hebrew Press.

Haolam Hazeh of 27 October 1971 reported at

length on the conditions in the prison and on the illtreatment of the prisoners there. It summed up its

findings in these words -

"Ashkelon Is hell. A place where prisoners -

mainly Arabs - are sent to break their spirits.

Not for interrogation, God forbid, but only after

trial. Ashkelon is a special-punishment jail.

contd. ./7
149

7 -

Prisoners transferred healthy and upright from

Ramleh, go back to Ramleh after a few weeks

broken, destroyed - and silent."

As for the demonstrations against prison conditions

which occurred in 1976 (and again in the early part

of 1977), the truth is that the Israeli authorities

themselves have admitted that prison conditions in

Israel are not satisfactory and this has been reported

in the international press. For example, Eric

Marsden's report in The Times (London) of 10

February 1977 described in some detail the overcrowding and bad conditions in Israeli prisons and

quoted the Israeli Commissioner of Prisons,

Mr. Haim Levi, as saying that:

"Prisoners in Israel have an average living

space of 2.2 square metres, compared

with 11.3 square metres in the United States."

There is a large body of pnma facie evidence that

Israeli Arab prisoners have often been physically

assaulted and systematically ill-treated in Israeli

prisons. For example, the Palestinian poet,

Fouzi el-Asmar, gives a detailed account of the

ill-treatment he received in several different Israeli

prisons in his autobiographical book "To be an Arab

in Israel". Other and more recent cases have been

described in material published by the Israel League

of Human and Civil Rights and from time to time in

the Hebrew press. For example, Yediot Aharonot

of 18 April 1975 carried a long and detailed article

in which the reporter, an Israeli Jew, described

seeing the police beat up an Arab in the yard of the

court-house at Beersheba. The Arab was then

charged with assault. The report continues with a

contd /8
150

- 8 -

verbatim account of the proceedings in court showing

that it was a ludicrous travesty of justice.

An example of the use of excessive force by the

Israeli authorities was provided on the occasion of

the "Day of the Land" on 30 March 1976. This was

a one-day strike by Arabs in Galilee to protest

against the confiscation of thousands of dunams of

their land as part of a plan known as the

Judaization of Galilee. In the course of a single

day seven Arabs were shot dead and scores were

wounded and beaten up. The security forces shot

indiscriminately into crowds, bludgeoned anyone

in sight and dragged people out of their homes to

arrest them. Writing in Haolam Hazeh of 7 April

1976 Elie Tabor commented:

"When an independent militarily strong state

speaks the language of force to a national

minority that lives in it, as happened in

Galilee last week, it is not a display of strength

but obviously derives from weakness and shows

that the Israeli government is afraid of the

Arabs of Israel whom it does not treat as

citizens with equal rights. It employs

repressive measures against them as if they

were a people under occupation, exactly as

it did some weete ago in repressing the

protest demonstrations in the West Bank. "

He went on to describe the yea^s since the

establishment of the State of Israel as

"28 years of plundering, theft of abandoned

property, confiscation and national persecution,

economic and social backwardness, and

encouragement of feudalism."

contd /e
151

Thts year (1977) on the anniversary of the "Day

of the Land" demonstrations again occurred in

Galilee. Al-Hamishmar of 4 April and Ha'aretz

of 5 April carried detailed reports of brutal attacks

by the police and border guards against the villages

of Jatt and Baka al-Gharbyieh. Twenty people were

wounded.

B. Other Important Freedoms

"Israel's Arab minority has

equal rights with Jews under

the law and In recent years

has been able to exercise its

civil rights fully, with only

rare instances of civil rights

discrimination. Subtler

forms of discrimination on

an individual basis, in such

spheres as holding political

office and employment

opportunities, do occur."

The escape clause at the end of this passage tends to

nullify the preceding generalisation. How rare

are the "Instances of civil rights discrimination"?

How prevalent are the "subtler forms of

discrimination on an individual basts"?

Ha'aretz of 26 March 1975 carried an open letter by

Professor Uzi Osman describing the system of

privileges and discrimination which is now built

into Israeli society. He summed up:

"Today, equality between citizens is only to

be found in the Israeli Declaration of

Independence - a nice document, which

expresses the ideals of an earlier period,

but is devoid of any judicial or legal value

in Israel: In the actual life of the

country, all sorts of privileges were

ensured and consolidated by laws and

regulations still in force".

A striking example of discrimination against the

Arabs of Israel is provided by the new town of Carmiel

(a suburb of Haifa) which is exclusively reserved

for Jews. A long article in Ha'aretz of 18 February

1972 described the markedly racialist attitudes of

the Jewish residents there. Again Upper Nazareth is

reserved for Israeli Jews and many flats stand empty

contd /10
152

- 10 -

there, while in Lower (Arab) Nazareth there ts much

overcrowding.

"There is general freedom of

expression, opinion, and

assembly. The Government

reserves the right to control

public assemblies and

parades. Both the Hebrew

and Arabic press are free

and express a wide variety

of opinions. All newspapers

in Israel are subject to

censorship on military

matters. Political freedom

is guaranteed for all shades

of political views."

The Emergency Regulations empower the authorities

in Israel to impose censorship on newspapers and to

prohibit them from publishing specified matters which

may impair "tire security of the state and the public

Interest" (Art. 87); and also to suspend newspapers or

to close them down (Art. 94-98). "Security" is

interpreted in an extremely broad way and is not

limited to military security. The authorities have

absolute discretion to refuse licences for the

publication of newspapers and have used these powers.

They are not required to disclose their reasons.

Two occasions on which these powers were used were:

(1) in 1960 to prevent the publication in Arabic of a

paper called al-Ard by an Arab nationalist group which

advocated recog-rlticn of the rights of the Palestinian

Arab people and of the Arabs in IsrE*'; and (2) in 1969

to prevent the publication in Arabic of a paper called

al-Nur by Matzpen (tie Israeli Socialist Organisation).

In the former cfise the matter was taken to the

Supreme Court which decided that it could not

Interfere with the discretionary power conferred by

the Emergency Regulations.

On 1Sth April 1977 the Mayors of ; -e West Bank towns

sent a letter of protect to the United Nations,

complaining of Israeli censorship of Arabic papers in

East Jerusalem. According to a report on that date in

Davar they sent it to the Human Rights Commission

complaining that journalists were prevented by the

military government from doing their job in the

occupied territories when it came to reporting land

contd. ./11
153

n

expropriations, colonization projects and

demonstrations.

When the censor insists on the excision of some

report, the Arab editor is not allowed to leave

the space blank, but must fill it, however short the

notice, with other news. These conditions apply

only to the Arabic press.

Freedom of association is in theory almost absolute.

But in practice there is constant discrimination between

Arabs and Jews in this respect. It is exercised by

invoking the Emergency powers relating to freedom

of the person against Arab individuals who seek to

establish any political organisation specifically for

Arabs. These powers have been used even to

prevent the establishment of Arab sports and cultural

clubs. When Israeli Arabs attempted in 19e4 to

establish a political party with candidates for election

to the Knesset, the leaders of the movement were

expelled from their homes and required to live in

wholly Jewish towns until the elections were over.

Sabrt Jiryis, speaking with first-hand knowledge of

how "political freedom is guaranteed for all shades of

political opinion" in Israel, sums up the matter in

these words -

"Within the framework of Zionist thought, the

Israeli citizen can enjoy democratic freedoms.

But it is a different matter when there is an

attempt to oppose the Zionist entity or to change

it, even by democratic methods, or when there

is a demand for national political rights. This is

especially the case when such activity assumes an

Arab or, as the Israeli authorities prefer to

contd /12
154

- 12 -

call tt, a "security" character. Then all these

freedoms go by the board."

(Sabri Jtryts, Democratic Freedoms in Israel, p.9,

published by The Institute for Palestine Studies).

ISRAEL'S OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

LEGAL SITUATION

"The civil liberties

situation in the occupied

territories is different

from that in Israel proper

because of the inevitable

tension between the

occupying authorities and

the indigenous population

and the constant security

threat posed by occasional

demonstrations and

clandestine dissident groups.

The intention of this comment seems to be to

establish a presumption in the reader's mind that

the special circumstances of the occupied territories

justify specially harsh and repressive measures, and

that the fault lies not with those who occupy land

which does not belong to them but with those who

resist that occupation.

"The occupied territories are

under military government,

and their administration is

considered by the United

Nations and by the United

States to be governed by the

stipulations of the Fourth

Geneva Convention regarding

occupied territories, an

Interpretation Israel has

contested."

Having explained that the administration of the

occupied territories is considered by the United

Nations ("and by the United States") to be governed

by the Fourth Geneva Convention, the survey observes

that this is "an interpretation Israel has contested" -

but does not mention that there are no grounds for

Israel's Interpretation, nor that the United States

joined with other members of the Security Council In

the consensus statement of 11 November 1976 which

deplored the establishment of Israeli settlements in

the occupied territories and declared that such

measures, including the annexation of East Jerusalem,

had no legal validity.

contd. ./13
155

13 -

"Nevertheless, as required

by the Convention, Jordanian

taw (with some Israeli

modifications, such as

election laws and a valueadded tax) is applied on

the West Bank - but not in

East Jerusalem."

This comment is disingenous. Israel has applied its

own Emergency Regulations to the occupied territories

and these override the Jordanian law in matters

affecting human rights. Then too, the throw-away

reference to East Jerusalem tends to play down the

crucial importance of that area and the total

illegality of Israel's annexation, it also obscures the

f_ct that the area purportedly annexed by Israel

comprises not only the Old City (within the wails) b'jt

also a large extent cf adjacent territory stretching

from Kalandia in the north to the outskirts of

Bethlehem in the south.

"As for administrative

JC^ntion, under BritishMandate emergency laws

that Jordan was still

enforcing on the West Bank

when Israel occupied it in

1257, the authorities can

have persons detained on

security grounds up to

six months without filing

charges against them or

bringing them to trial

and, since such detention is

renewable, can hold such

individuals more or less

indefinitely."

The survey goes out of its way to point out that,

before Israel occupied the West Bank, Jordan was

enforcing the same power of administrative detention

that Israel now exercises (both Jordan and Israel

having inherited the power from the Mandate

Government). But it does not explain that it Is one

thing for a sovereign government to exercise such a

power over its own citizens and another for an

occupying government to do so (in contravention of the

Fourth Geneva Convention) over the civilian population

living unders its occupation.

OBSERVANCE OF INTERNATIONALLV

RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS

A. Integrity of the Person

"In the occupied areas, i.ha

occupation authorities have

The survey doec not mention the «cf>'e on which the

Israelis have resorted to this vicious punitive action

contd. ./14
156

razed houses suspected or

known to have harboured

terrorists."

-14-

nor the wanton way in which it has been imposed.

Over 16,000 houses have been destroyed, many of

them without any real evidence of their having been

used to harbour terrorists. In addition a number of

entire villages have been destroyed. In the case of

Nebi Samwil the Israeli authorities did not even invoke

the pretext of terrorist activity.

"In quelling demonstrations

and restoring order in the

territories, the Israeli

authorities in several

instances have used

excessive force. These

actions have not reflected

government policy, and

individuals found guilty of

such excesses have been

disciplined and occasionally

jailed. The use of extreme

pressures during

tnterrogatiqns of security

suspects has been described

in certain reports and may

have taken place, although

reports of the use of actual

torture during

interrogations have not been

substantiated."

Many of the actions of the Israeli forces in the

occupied territories have tended more to provoke

disorder than to "restore order", and no one can say

with certainty that the excesses they have committed

"have not reflected government policy". There is no

lack of precedents in Israel's history for the deliberate

and planned provocation of violent Arab reactions in

order to provide a pretext for the use of force.

Here are two examples of the provocative use of

excessive violence by Israel's security forces:

(1) On 5 October 1976 al-Hamishmar reported: "On

Saturday morning while Moslems were praying

at the Tomb (sc. of Abraham at Hebron) fifteen

inhabitants of Ktryat Arba (sc. the Israeli

settlement near Hebron) arrived on the scene,

incensed by those praying, started a fight,

damaged property and destroyed several volumes

of the Koran."

The next day Ha'arete reported:

"After the desecration of the mosque soldiers

attacked those youths who were still inside

Abraham's tomb and beat them up using rifle

butts, truncheons and bare fists."

(2) On 26 June 1977 the Sunday Times published a

letter from Miss Elizabeth Monroe C.M.G,

giving her own eye-witness account of an

contd. ./1S
157

- 15-

incident at Ramallah where "brutality was

used as a deterrent" against protest

demonstrations. On 9 March 1977 students at

the UNRWA teachers training college held a

sit-in strike in support of hunger-striking

prisoners in Ashkelon gaol. Some students set

up a road block and threw stones at Israeli

soldiers. These students ran off and escaped.

The soldiers then entered and teargassed the

college. About 70 students ran up a hill to escape

the gas; a random 17 of them were rounded up,

and "made to serve as an example". UNRWA

officials managed to have these 17 students

removed to the Augusta Victoria Hospital in

East Jerusalem. Miss Monroe continues:

"I visited them there on March 10th, and

saw that (1) the backs of all of them were

heavily blood-bruised in a chevron pattern

that suggested beating from both sides;

(2) two had been kicked in the genitals

and were passing blood in their water;

(3) several had beaten arms, near or on

the elbow; (4) two had badly cut heads,

entailing shaved hair and many stitches;

(5) three had bruised mouths, and two of

them missing teeth. UNRWA officials

arrived to take depositions just as I was

leaving, so they have the medical

particulars.

Israelis said that these wounds happened

because students fell down the hill; this

explanation is incompatible with the

injuries that I saw."

contd /16
158

16-

A detailed inquiry published in the Sunday Times cf

19 June 1977 came to the conclusion that the use of

torture was "sanctioned at some level as deliberate

policy". It said:

"Torture is organised so methodically that It came":

be dismissed as a handful of 'rogue cops'

exceeding orders. It is systematic. It appears

to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate

policy".

"As regards prison conditions

in the territories, a recent

International Red Cross

inspection found that

prisoners under Israeli

control are living under

satisfactory conditions".

The survey does not mention that, as explained in the

Sunday Times Inquiry and in many previous reports

by such bodies as the Israeil League for Human and

Civil Rights, the Israeli authorities tio not allow the

International Red Cross to inspect interrogation

centres, police stations ard military camps where

prisoners are kept. The Sunday Times added:

"Nor do they have unrestricted access even to

prisons. Attached to prisons in the occupied

territories are sots of ceils which the Red Cross

cannot see".

Many of the complaints about prison conditions rclP-tc

to these other places of detention which are separate

from the regular prisons.

Moreover, since the disturbances which occurred in

1976 and again earlier this year in protest against

the conditions in Israeli prisons, much evidence has

accumulated to show that those conditions are often

bad and that the complaints were fully justified. On

13 January 1977 the International Red Cross took the

highly unusual step of Issuing a public statement

drawing attention to the Israeli Government's failure

to end overcrowding and to improve conditions in

contd. ./17
159

- 17 -

respect of medical services, family contacts and

cultural facilities.

"Over the years the Israeli

authorities have frequently

expelled residents of the

territories suspected or

known to have engaged in

terrorism or anti-Israeli

political agitation, in

contravention of Article

49 of the Geneva

Convention."

This does not mention the scale on which Arab

inhabitants have thus been expelled from their homes

and land. Over 800 have been deported since 1967.

Nor does it bring out the utter illegality of this

proceeding. Nor does it mention how flimsy the

grounds have often been for the Israeli authorities'

action in expelling a man from his home and country,

breaking up his household and destroying his

livelihood. The expulsion of Dr. Hanna Nasr, the

distinguished and respected head of Sir Zeit College,

is a case in point.

B. Other Important Freedoms

"... freedom of opinion and The Israeli authorities' own record in expelling

expression is relatively leading Palestinian Arabs who have the courage to

uninhibited." challenge and speak out aoainst Israel's actions in the

occupied territories gives the lie to this bland

assertion.

"Israel did not interfere

when, in the second West

Bank municipal election,

in 1976 Arab nationalists

hostile to Israel ran for

office and in most cases

won election, and the

Israeli authorities

assisted in assuring

that the election was

conducted properly."

Apparently Israel is to bo given credit for not

intervening (illegally z.rr\ in contravention of the

Convention) in the elections. There is also the

implied sneer that the Arab inhabitants were incapable

of conducting their elections propsrly by themselves

and needed the assistance of the Israeli authorities.

But much worse is the suppression of the truth,

Israel did interfere in these elections by deporting

two of the candidates (Dr. Ahmad Hamzi Natshi and

Dr. Abdel-Aziz Haj AhniLd) on the eve of the election,

because they were "Arab nationalists hostile to

Israel". (An Israeli Army spokesman said they had

been deported on charges of being "ringleaders of

contd.,,.,/18
160

agitation in their towns"). The suppression of this

fact cannot be due to ignorance since the case became

a cause ceiebre in Israel. The two men appealed to

the Israeli courts against their deportation; but the

security authorities hastily ejected them from the

West Bank the night before the case was to be heard.

OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING

"Amnesty International's

1974-75 Annual Report

included an appeal to the

Israeli Government to

terminate two aspects of its

administration of the West

Bank namely, deportation

and administrative

detention of prisoners. The

1975 Amnesty Report on

Torture included allegations

of torture in the period

1968 to 1973."

The survey does not give any indication whether the

allegations of torture in the Amnesty report of 1975

were supported by evidence nor does it mention an

earlier Amnesty International report of April 1970

which listed in detail a number of cases where there

was prima facie evidence of the serious maltreatment

of Arab prisoners under interrogation in Israel.

This report received wide publicity (e.g. in The Times

(London) of 3 April 1970). It produced an outraged

denial by the Israeli authorities, accompanied

however by an uncompromising refusal to allow an

independent inquiry into the allegations.

"A recent International Red

Cross inspection of prison

conditions reports a total

prison population for all areas

under Israeli control of

3,000 - 4,000 people, living

under satisfactory

conditions."

As indicated above, this conceals the fact that the

Red Cross are not allowed to inspect all places of

detention and are not allowed to see prisoners until

eighteen days of "preventive detention" for enquiry

have elapsed. This is the period in which excessive

force is most often used. It also omits to mention

that, as revealed by the Insight inquiry in the Sunday

Times;

"Over the last nine years, when Red Cross

representatives hsve got to prisoners in jails,

they have heard story after story of ill-treatment

and torture."

contd. ./19
159

17 -

respect of medical services, family contacts and

cultural facilities.

"Over the years the Israeli

authorities have frequently

expelled residents of the

territories suspected or

known to have encaged in

terrorism or anti-Israeli

political agitation, in

contravention of Article

49 of the Geneva

Convention."

This does not mention the scale on which Arab

inhabitants have thus been expelled from their homes

and land. Over 800 have been deported since 1967.

Nor does it bring out the utte;* illegality of this

proceeding. Nor does it mention how flimsy the

grounds have often been for the Israeli authorities'

action in expelling a man from his home and country,

breaking up his household and destroying his

livelihood. The expulsion of Dr. Hanna Nasr, the

distinguished and respected head of 3ir Zeit College,

is a case in point.

B. Other Important Freedoms

"... freedom of opinion and The Israeli authorities' own record in expelling

expression is relatively leading Palestinian Arabs who have the courage to

uninhibited." challenge and speak out anainst Israel's actions in the

occupied territories gives the lie to this bland

assertion.

"Israel did not interfere

when, in the second West

Bank municipal election,

in 1976 Arab nationalists

hostile to Israel ran for

office and in most cases

won election, and the

Israeli authorities

assisted in assuring

that the election was

conducted properly."

Apparently Israel is to bo given credit for not

intervening (illegally crr\ in contravention of tine

Convention) in the elections. There is also the

implied sneer that the Arab inhabitants were incapable

of conducting their elections properly by themselves

and needed the assistance of the Israeli authorities.

But much worse is the suppression of the truth,

Israel did interfere in these elections by deporting

two of the candidates (Dr. Ahmad Hamzi Natshi and

Dr. Abde'.-Aziz Haj Ahmed) on the eve of the election,

because they were "Arab nationalists hostile to

Israel". (An Israeli Army spokesman said they had

been deported on charges of being "ringleaders of

contd. ,/18
162

- 20-

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The reaction of the Government of Israel, whenever public criticism has

appeared charging it with violating the human rights of the Arabs living under

Israeli rule, has been to dismiss the charges as either malevolent propaganda

or evidence of the gullibility of those making them. This has been accompanied

by assertions of Israel's devotion to democracy and freedom. In the document

here under scrutiny the State Department echoes and endorses this reaction.

But if Israel's record in these matters is so impeccable, why is it that

the Government of Israel has so consistently refused to permit any independent

and impartial enquiry? When the first Amnesty International report appeared

in 1970, the then Ambassador of Israel in London said that his country was

justifiably proud of the independence of its judiciary which was "fully competent

to investigate accusations of illegal behaviour against its citizens". He went on:

"How would the British Government react to demands that a

commission of enquiry composed of foreign jurors be set

up to investigate allegations of torture or brutality in, say,

Ulster?"

At that time it was pointed out in correspondence in The Times that the British

Government had in fact already faced precisely that challenge in Cyprus and had

agreed to an international inquiry under the auspices of the European Human

Rights Commission. It was also pointed out that the prima facie evidence

produced in the Amnesty International report was certainly no less substantial

than that which formed the basis of the complaint against Britain over Cyprus.

Since then the situation envisaged by the Israeli Ambassador in regard to Ulster

has in fact happened and Britain again agreed to submit its record in Northern

Ireland to the scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights.

Instead of encouraging Israel in rejecting accusations as "propagandistic"

and "without foundation", the State Department would be better advised to urge

the Government of Israel to follow the example of the British Government and

submit to an international inquiry. So long as Israel refuses to do so, the rest

of the world may reasonably conclude that there must be something to hide. On

the evidence of the document here under scrutiny, it may well also conclude that

the State Department is more concerned to cover up than to reveal the truth about

human rights in Israel.
163

COLLECTION OF ISRAELI NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ON

THE PERSECUTION OF BLACK HEBREWS IN ISRAEL

FEBRUARY 1, 1977.

REPORT ON THE PERSECUTION OF THE "BLACK HEBREWS" IN ISRAEL

PREFACE

"Black Hebrews" is the name of a minor sect composed of Black people from

the USA, who believe in the Bible, and in the religious duty of the believers to

settle in the Holy Land. At the beginning of their arrival in Israel, in 1969, they

were mistaken for Jews or candidates for conversion to Judaism, and the first

group was given the right to work in Israel and were allowed to rent flats. After

a few months, when they have refused to celebrate the festival of Chanuka on

the ground that it is not mentioned in the Bible, their persecution had begun.

Periodically the Israeli government attempts to expel them from Israel, first

whole families were expelled, but after "the scenes" at the airport of the policemen struggling with women and children•-who shouted to the tourists "We are

Americans" and waved their USA passports•were shown to be harmful to the

Israeli "image", the expulsion of the women and children ceased. Nevertheless

all the "Black Hebrews" live now in Israel for some eight years "illegally" subjected to periodical persecution both from some of the government offices, and

even more so from the Jewish population in the few towns in which they perforce concentrate, as will be shown below. Indeed their situation resembles very

closely the situation of those Jews in the Tsarist Russia, who attempted to live

"illegally" beyond the borders of the "Pale"•the only area in which Jews were

permitted then to live.

However there is a crucial difference: A very great number of the Russian

intellectuals of the XIX century among whom the names of such giants as Tolstoy and Gorky are honourably conspicuous; and likewise very many of the writers, artists and well-known people in other countries, interested themselves then

in the situation of the persecuted Jew of Tsarist Russia, and protested frequently against their treatment by the Tsarist government.

We, here in Israel, suffer from a surfeit of writers and other intellectuals, who

come here on a sort of pilgrimage, and write profitable books about it, like Mr.

S. Bellow; but just as I have yet never heard about a single one of those pseudopilgrims interesting himself seriously in the plight of the Palestinians, so I

have yet never heard about one of them saying a word about the sufferings of the

"Black Hebrews". Nevertheless, the suffering is very real; some of it will be

described by two extracts from the recent Israeli press.

JANUARY 7, 1977.

EXTRACTS FROM THE "BLACK HEBREWS" AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE;

(By Meshulam Ad)

About a month ago, the chairman of the local council of Arad,1 Mr. Shochet,

asked the police to do something in order to deal with the tension between the

local inhabitants (i.e., the Jewish population of Arad. Tr.) and the "Black

Hebrews." According to Shochet the inhabitants complain of "noise and pain

caused to them on stairs because of the horrible density of the Black Hebrews."

According to him some 120 "Black Hebrews" are living in a great density in fivesix small rented flats.

The chairman of Arad's local council admits that (in Israel) there are no laws

against high density of people in flats, but he is very conscious of the great suffering of the inhabitants who have to live in a neighborhood to flats filled by about

20 souls of "Black Hebrews" in one flat.

But the police did not see any reason for an intervention, for those people are

never involved in any crimes. The spokesman for the Negev police captain Davido1A township east of Be'er-Sheva, in the Negev. One of the few inhabited by the "Black

Hebrews".
164

vitz said: "Until now, during so many years, even one housebreaker was not

found among them."

Therefore Mr. Shochet appealed to (the Israeli) Ministry of Internal Affairs

and demanded that steps will be taken against those "tourists", whose visa period

was finished a long time ago. But the Ministry is not very keen to deal with the

problem. It must be surely aware of the political aspects, since actual expulsion

of people with a black skin from Israel, can allow some to put on it a label of a

racist state. But nevertheless, one can not accuse the (Israeli) Ministry for the

Internal Affairs of doing nothing, for usually "tourists" of this kind are prevented of entering Israel, specially if they can not show financial means for livelihood in Israel.'

The people of the sect (of Black Hebrews. Tr.) are working illegally with contractors and in various plants. Some craftsmen are found among them, and they

sell their creations•leather purses, jewellery etc.•on the streets of the cities

and even in the campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. They have founded

a jazz orchestra, which became very famous in Israel and whose profits help the

sectarians to survive. The sectarians do not pursue luxuries and live austerely,

and even with this are joyful and always sing dance and play instruments

together; and this, specially when it takes place in the evening greatly disturbs

the repose of the inhabitants.

It seems to me that a civilized state can not tolerate such a situation, where 30

persons inhabit one flat and where black children, not admitted to schools (since

they are illegal tourists. Tr.) receive an independent education, not in recognized school and not in classes but in the parks and the shelters of the houses.

Therefore, though the political sensitivity can be understood this problem must

be tackled decisively. If it is wanted that the sectarians should continue to live

in Israel, they must be allowed to live in conditions in which they will not be

health and social nuisance bothers. And if their living here is not wanted as it

is illegal, the law must take its course, and they must be returned to where they

came from.

We must not resign ourselves to the fact, that those people will continue to

live in Israel, penniless, and will increase even more the insufferable density

in the sectarian flats in Dimona, Arad and other places. And though the subject,

is delicate it must be dealt with, for as much as the time passes without dealing

with it, the problem becomes more severe.

JANUABY 5, 1977.

EXTRACT'S FROM "THE BIACK IN DIMONA ARE NOT ABSORBED"

(By Mordechay Artzieli)

IFour (Israeli) Ministers•for Foreign Affairs, Justice, Internal Affairs and

Police•received last week identical letters whose subject is•those Blacks who

are in Dimona. The identical letters were signed by the Mayor of Dimona, the

Vice-Mayor, the secretary of the local workers council and the local rabbi (the

worst racist of them all and the chief incitor against the Blacks, as was usual

among the Christian priests in many localities against the Jews. Nothing

changes. Israel Shahak.).

The letters say that the last period a great tension is felt between the inhabitants and the Blacks. The inhabitants of the quarter where tie Blacks

live "have reached a hopeless state, and are leaving the quarter and Dimona

itself." The reason is, so the letters say, that the shelters of the houses were

conquered by force and without permission by the Blacks who use them for

craftsmen work and for their orchestra exercises.

"'The social condition in Dimona is nearing an explosion for the Blacks are

not content with the single quarter in which they lived so far, but attempt to rent

flats in the other quarters, and sometimes even 30 souls live in one flat of 64

square meters•and this can destroy all orderly life in the quarter concerned."

The letters finish by saying that the situation cannot continue and "we see in you

2The meaning is simple: A White USA tourist will not be bothered on coming to Israel,

even though he has little money on him. A black one, will be•that Is except If he comes

on a special trip of "Black notables" shepherded by the U.S. Zionists to see the Israeli

democracy in action. I. Shahak.
165

and in the Israeli government, the responsible ones for this subject, and for every

unusual or calamitous thing that will develop in our city because of this" . . .

The members of the sect do not complain. All work and keep themselves alive.

Their children, prevented to go to school are receiving education in shelters, or

in the summer in the parks. Yesterday on a wet and cold day I have seen some

dozen children sitting in a wet shelter and receiving through an improvised

blackboard a lesson in the geography of Palestine.

They even do not complain about the horrible density in their flats, in many

of them the "warm bed" system is employed. This system is the best when four

or five families must live with their children in one small flat. The sectarians

attempted to rent further flats in the free market, but the flat owners were

cautioned3not to rent their flats to Blacks. Only very few disregard the

threats and rented their flats to the sectarians . . .

I think this is quite enough. All government controlled housing and work facilities are closed before those people. Threats and "cautionings" are employed

even to close before them the charity of the few that are charitable. Expulsion

is ever on their heads, and from time to time grown-up males•the very mainstay and working force of the community•are expelled. Is there any country

in the world now, where Jews are treated in a similar way ? I do not say that the

situation of Jews is ideal in all countries. I am on record in the past, of protesting, for example against the treatment of Jews in Syria, which has improved

meanwhile to some extent.

But it is the height of the modern hypocrisy, that out of so many people,

specially intellectuals Jewish and non-Jewish, who have concerned themselves,

and sometimes justly concerned themselves, with the various cases of the

persecution of the Jews, or of discrimination against the Jews, no one so far,

has found the minimal courage to raise his voice in support of the persecuted

"Black Hebrews" in the "Jewish State"! Will anybody be found in the future?

Israel Shahak.

JERUSALEM, May 5,1976.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

We, the undersigned Sylvie Garbarz, Eytan Grossfeld and Witold Jedlicki

hereby declare that we witnessed the following two incidents, both of which

occurred in the city of Jerusalem, on Monday, May 3, 1976, between the hours

of 9 and 10 p.m.

(1) We were on Sultan Suleiman Street, walking toward the corner of

Nablus Road, when we noticed a strange commotion on and around an army

vehicle (a middle-sized personnel carrier not covered by any tarp) stationed

on the opposite side of the street, in the close proximity of Damascus Gate.

Intrigued by the sight, we crossed the street and approached the vehicle.

Sitting or standing on the platform of the vehicle there were about 12 uniformed

soldiers of the Border Guard. Milling around the vehicle there was another group

of soldiers, of roughly the same number: it included several paratroopers. Lying

on the floor of the platform there were detainees in civilian clothes. We were in

the position to see them clearly, but we could not determine their exact number.

We can state, however, that there were no less than two and no more than

four of them. The detainees were being beaten, kicked and stomped by at least

two of the soldiers, relentlessly and with savagery.

Undersigned Grossfeld promptly identified the commanding officer and approached him with the aim of intervening on behalf of the victims. He was rudely

told to move away from the scene immediately. Undersigned Garbarz pleaded

with another soldier to stop the beatings; with the same effect. Another soldier,

apparently more amicably disposed, explained to us that the beatings were a

"matter of (venting) emotions." One of the two bystanders, siding with the perpetrators of the beatings, attempted to convince us that "perhaps these Arabs

planted a bomb". He referred to an explosion which had occurred, approximately

one hour earlier, in the center of the Jewish part of the city. (Until then, we

did not know about this explosion.) When undersigned Grossfeld retorted: "but

perhaps they did not", another bystander said: "So what; they are Arabs anyway". All these exchanges took place in Hebrew. While they were taking place,

the beatings went on, uninterruptedly.

3 By the rabbi, the mayor, the school teacher, the police, et cetera. The combined "caution"

was nearly 100 percent effective. I. Shahak.
166

Once again ordered to walk away by one of the soldiers, we had no choice but

to obey. We wish to stress that the two mentioned bystanders, whose presence

could not remain unnoticed by the soldiers, were not ordered to leave. We alone

were, because we attempted to intervene. But while walking away, we could

see that beating went on as the car, for no apparent purpose, stayed put, instead

of moving towards its destination.

(2) Some 20-25 minutes later we were in the Jaffa Gate area. In front of

Jaffa Gate we noticed, from a distance of about 30-50 meters, a mixed crowd of

soldiers and civilians. Suddenly, a Border Guard jeep drove up onto the sidewalk,

and, moving with considerable speed on the sidewalk, approached the crowd. We

clearly saw a human figure flung by the men in the crowd onto the platform of

the jeep. Undersigned Grossfeld who was positioned closest to the scene, saw

that the detainee was covered with blood. Then, undersigned Grossfeld caught

sight of the following event. A civilian lifted a piece of cloth from the ground and

tossed it onto the jeep. A Border Guard soldier on the jeep picked the cloth

up, pushed it against the detainee's face, and shoved the latter's head rapidly

backward. We wish to add that in spite of darkness and our distance from the

scene, the visibility was extraordinarily good, owing to the bright illumination

of the Old City walls.

(Signed) SYLVIE GABBABZ.

ETTAN GBOSSFELD.

WlTOLD JEDLICKI.

ISEAELI NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT AEABS IN THE

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES WHO WORK IN ISRAEL

MABCH 16,1976.

A PBOTEST AGAINST THE TBEATMENT OP THE ABABS FROM THE OCCUPIED

TEBBITOBIES WHO WOBK IN ISRAEL

SLAVES AT NIGHT WORKERS DURING THE DAY

(By Aryeh Egozi)

Laborers from the occupied territories are locked in at night in order to

prevent vagrancy.

The tragedy that occurred the day before yesterday, in which three laborers

working in a mattress factory in Tel-Aviv were burned alive, laid bare the

phenomenon of "Hotels", under jail conditions, in places of work.

Every evening, the doors of the warehouses•which have turned into improvised living quarters•are locked, and thousands of laborers from the occupied territories who work in a variety of factories within the green line are kept

within. The doors remain locked until the early morning hours, a short time

before the beginning of the work day.

This phenomenon•well known to the police and civilian patrols who make

the rounds nightly in the areas in which Arab laborers are concentrated•was

brought to the general public's attention as a result of the blaze that broke out

the night before last in a small mattress factory in Tel-Aviv. When the Are

had been extinguished, the firemen rushed into the structure which was completely destroyed and found three crenulated bodies.

A brief investigation brought to light that the victims were young laborers

from the Gaza .Strip, who worked in the factory and slept there at night.

The Tel-Aviv police district spokesman, superintendent Avinoam Cahani,

reported yesterday that the police investigation revealed that the three were

not able to escape from the room in which they were sleeping because the door

had been locked from the outside. The spokesman added that the factory's owners

would, apparently, be brought to trial.

As has been said, the phenomenon of locking the doors of rooms where

workers from the occupied territories are billeted is widespread and there are

two main reasons for it. Factory owners must obtain both work permits and sleeping accommodations for their Arab workers, and they seek to prevent the

workers•by locking them in•from needless vagrancy in the streets of the

cities at night•a thing, according to the directives, that is forbidden. The
167

employers know that if a worker, wandering in the streets is discovered after

midnight, he will be brought to the police station for investigation. On occasion,

such a worker is required to remain in the police station until the afternoon

hours of the following day and that means a loss of work hours.

In addition, it appears that in most of the cases in which the factory owners

lock the doors, work permits and sleeping accommodations have not been

obtained. Since obtaining such permits involves applying to the government

employment offices, the employer must pay, in addition to the worker's salary,

various social security payments set by law, payments that, naturally, increase

manufacturing costs. In order to prevent the discovery of such "underground

laborers" by the police or by the civilian patrols (who make frequent visits, at

night, to the industrial areas), it is the practice of factory, garage and small

workshop owners to lock the doors come nightfall.

"I lock the door in the evening and know that in the morning I'll And all

of them on the premises•and I won't have to run to the police and waste time

and lose work hours," I was told yesterday by the owner of a small factory

in south Tel-Aviv who employs four workers from Rafah, each of whom has

been equipped with the necessary permits.

A tour of the industrial areas in cities located in the center of the country,

reveals "hotels" in which workers from the occupied territories reside in congested quarters, more often than not lacking proper sanitary conditions.

A DEMAND FOB AN END TO COLONIAL SLAVERY

(Mordechai Avi-Shaul, President of the Israel League for Human and Civil

Rights)

"Halt! Where's your identification?

Where you comin' from ? Where you goin' ?

Your papers! D'ya hear? Your papers!!!!

Well, now, you seem to be getting the point.

You people don't understand regular human talk.

Stand still, don't move!

, put your hands up!

Ah-ha, Aywa, Aywa ! You filthy rag!

March, you thieves, you murderers!

Terrorists!

March, jump!

Jump, what's wrong with your hearing?!

Just you wait, I'll find a way of making you talk,

You piece of !"

Not like South Africa! There they have a racist regime. The terrain of Israel

is not like the terrain of Africa. Everything is liberal, democratic•chez-nous.

Humane. Even though it is "difficult to be both Jewish and humane" as was

said in an article in "Maariv".

The continuation will come, down at headquarters or in the jail courtyard.

Surely there they will open his mouth with brass knuckles.

The reverberations of the screams of those being tortured at the Dizingoff

police headquarters reached all the way to the editorial desk of the liberal

newspaper read by the intellectual community of this nation. Those living adjacent to the headquarters as well as those living further away are horror-stricken

by the nightly nightmarish events.

Everyone knows the truth. All the media ppeople know. They know more

than is being outlined here. They know of the horrors•and only one in a thousand

writes about them in the newspapers. A voice in the wilderness. A lonely voice

gagged by the cacophonous chorus of liars demanding "the taking of legal steps

against those slanderous people". Naturally, only after they've piously rolled

their eyes heavenward.

But "the police a re absolutely forbidden to beat", said the spokesman of the

northern district. "We don't beat security detainees and others, and in the event

of a complaint, the police conducts an investigation to the heart of the

matter..."

And what of those who have not been either security detainees or others, but

are just regular Arab workers? You may rest assured. By nightfall they will

have been transformed. If they come from the occupied territories to Israeli
168

settlements and towns in order to earn•through back-breaking work•a loaf

of bread for their families, to work the land from which they were evicted•the

land that became the property of the state. Without authorization, they may

not set foot on state land between the hours of midnight and three a.m., nor

sleep in a citizen's home. Like the blacks in South Africa.

And the Arab worker who has managed to obtain work, is tied and bound

like the Canaanite slaves of old; and without the generosity and patronage of

his master, he may not dare even lean on the walls of the town. And should

it even enter his mind to find a place to sleep in a derelict yard, or near the

buildings in which he works, he will find himself arrested on charges of vagrancy.

And ever so quickly he will turn into a security prisoner. But this is hardly

racism, perish the thought!

A worker who offers his services for work which is not perfectly legal, that

is for work which has not been authorized by the "liberal" government, is

preferred by the employer. One doesn't have to pay him so much. He is at the

mercy of the generosity of his master. He is tethered to his place of work, day

and night, simply so.

Come evening, the owner of a business, leaves his office and locks the gate behind him•a steel gate for added protection. He goes home, caresses his children,

smiles at his wife, eats dinner in the bosom of his family, enjoys the television

programs, and hears about the hunt for illegal Arab workers who have proliferated in the Negev. He reads in the newspaper about the youth from Raflach

("Ha'aretz" 1.8.75), a fifteen year-old hired hand, who was beaten to death in

Lachish by one employer because he fled from him and went to work for someone

else . . . He then reads, and a wry grin can be seen at the corners of his mouth :

those fools, don't they know that Arabs belong in a locked pen . . . with no one

coming in and no one going out . . . with no theft and no one taking flight . . .?

He, the liberal and democratic citizen, yawns and has already forgotten ... he

climbs into his bed and sinks into a pleasant unencumbered sleep.

"Every evening, the doors of the warehouses are locked, and thousands of

workers from the occupied territories ("liberated territories"•'M.A.) who work

in a variety of factories within the green line are kept within. The doors remain

locked until the early morning hours, a short time before the beginning of the

work day."

Is it possible that such barbaric deeds are perpetrated in secret? Or are the

charming employers afraid that their cruelties will become known to the authorities, to the guardians of the law? Is this possible? Since the subject under discussion is only Arab workers, and the prohibition against cruelty to animals does

not apply to them•who will pay attention to the penning-in of those who are

without protection and human rights, to those who are without citizenship and

national standing? The "phenomenon which is well known to the police and citizen patrol" (my emphasis, M.A.) would not have merited publication in any

daily newspaper in the state of Israel, had the firemen not discovered three

charred bodies among the ruins of a plant that went up in smoke. But the police

patrols "make the rounds nightly in the areas in which Arab workers are

concentrated."

What is the difference between Lachish area and Tel-Aviv? To all appearances, nothing at all. Perhaps the only difference is the form the colonial enslaving takes and the means by which it is uncovered. In the Lachish jungle, the murderer is safe, for no law applies to the Canaanite slave. Because it is none other

than the "liberal" government which has imposed the system of restrictive, racist laws on the workers of the conquered territories•the refugees and sons of

refugees; and it is the government which dispatches the police and the army

against the workers who dare to spend the night in the paradise of the Jewish

settlers who made the wilderness bloom•the wilderness being lands whose inhabitants were evicted. The pirates of Pithat Rafiach who destroyed farms and

plugged up wells and evicted honest Arab farmers, have risen to great heights

in Israeli society; they've been appointed advisers to the government.

In the Tel-Aviv jungle, the crime is embroidered with intellectual cynicism and

is immersed in a stench of rotting hypocrisy: "The egress door was locked from

the inside", lies the liberal newspaper. (Ha'aretz)

And all the media, in a chorus of criminal complicity, is busy investigating the

"causes" of the fire. Arson? An electrical incident? Gas? Combustion of matter

that caught fire in an electric heater?•"The suspicion regarding the possibility

of arson has been eliminated" . . . And the human beings who went up in the
169

flames? And those who are legally perpetrating these atrocities? What is the

reason for the sacrifice to Moloch•the ancient god to whom humans were sacrificed at the altar?

And when will the authors of this filth be brought to trial? The perpetrators of

the military regime and those who enacted the racist laws? And when will an

end be put to the colonial slavery on either side of the "green line"?

MARCH 19,1976.

PEOPLE AND VALUES Go UP IN FLAMES

(Column of Nathan Dunvitz, Ha'aretz)

It is unacceptable that Arab workers be treated as were the black slaves in

the cotton fields of the United States.

Years ago, I witnessed a scene I shall not forget to my dying day. A fire

engine and many passers-by were hastening to a store in the Mikveh Yisrael

street of Tel Aviv. "Aryeh" Taxis now occupies the space. The air was heavy

with smoke coming from the store and a horrifying scene was taking place

inside. A man was clasping the latticework of the store and screaming for help,

while flames consumed his body. Within minutes, the man became fire fodder

and only a scorched body•like a terrible black statue•and the heavy stench

of scorched meat remained. People froze in place. There were those who burst

into sobs, women shrieked hysterically. Even if they had come a few moments

earlier, the firemen could not have rescued the person. The store's exit was

blocked by flames, and the firemen were not able to saw the latticework because

the requisite tools were not available then.

The picture of a man going up in flames will never leave me. At this very

moment, as I write these lines, the terrible sensation•after many years•returns

to me. A horrible mixture of hideousness and helplessness.

Many young Israelis know this awful scene from the battlefield. Tank crews

turning into torches ... I don't know whether there is a more horrible vision

than this. Anyone who has seen such a scene in real life will find difficulty being

shaken by the almost-authentic depletion in the film "The Towering Inferno".

The vision of the human being going up in flames returned to me upon reading

the nearly-laconic description of the fire in a factory in south Tel Aviv, in which

three workers from the Gaza Strip found their death. The owner, so it was reported, was in the habit of locking them, nightly, into the factory which was a

teetering, fire-trap of a structure•in an area in which many such fires had

occurred over the years. It was his custom to lock the door with a large padlock

from the outside, and to go home until the morning hours of the following day.

He simply jailed them and they were unable to escape their bitter fate.

My first mental association was of the human being going up in flames. The

second : the life of slaves. Slavery in Israel.

Let them not come and claim that this is not slavery; and let them not

demand a prohibition on writing in this vein for fear of the materials being

used against us by our enemies. Let it be used. Maybe something will begin

moving. I am horrified by the thought of what happened, by the fact that this

could happen at all in this country, and by the knowledge•made public after

the fire•that there are other workers from the territories whose living conditions

are the same: huts and factory stuotures locked from the outside. Locked in like

slaves. To prevent them from going out and, heaven forbid, spending some

pleasant time outside; or perhaps to prevent them from committing acts of

sabotage since the responsibility would fall on those who left them in town at

night and did not ensure their return home across the green line.

The moral decline•which manifests itself in acts of decadence, bribery, life

lived outside the law, and which from time to time sees the light of day in

print•this is what is horrifying. When the building boom reached its zenith,

articles appeared here and there, describing the slave life of the workers in the

Hebrew cities. Not in those words•but the meaning was clear. And nothing

caused people to shudder or be horrified except the thought of "what would

happen if all the Arab workers didn't come to work and the entire economy were

struck. Who would build our houses? Who would bring the goods to market?"

The public did not shudder at the announcement•I no longer remember who

made it•that the workers from the occupied territories are the "hewers of wood
170

and drawers of water for Israeli society". Many Israelis saw, with their own eyes,

markets for the sale of workers forming themselves every morning under their

window sills. They saw the bosses bringing members of their villages and towns

and selling them, in return for a commission, to the Israeli contractor or factory

owner. And no one was shaken. It was just a portion of the layer of fat and plenty

that had become part of Israeli life during those years.

Now the blaze broke out in the factory in Tel Aviv. People were shaken•not all

of them•for a minute, a day. or maybe a week. And life will return to its regular

course. And I am willing to bet that workers from the territories will continue

living where they work or in huts made of tin and wood. In sub-human conditions.

Maybe, just maybe, an anonymous•or not so anonymous•person will be found

who will sit down to write of the human tragedy of people being locked in

nightly, with a big lock on the outside of the door•people who are not considered

prisoners but workers. In March 1852, an American woman, unknown up until

then, shook America and the world: Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote "Uncle Tom's

Cabin" and the world learned of the life of black slaves in the cotton and rice

fields of southern United States. Maybe someone will be found who will write

the story of the Tel Aviv cabin.

As an Israeli, I am mortified by this "phenomenon". See how far we have

deteriorated.

PALESTINIAN CHILDREN IN THE CONQUERED TERRITORIES IN 1976•THE CASE

OF POPULAR RESISTANCE AND OF REPRESSION

REPORT TO THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS

(By Attorney Felicia Langer, member of the board of the League)

The tenth year of the occupation can be appropriately named the year of children's resistance. The generation that "did not know Joseph", consisting of children who in 1967 could be as little as 3 or 5 years old. has not become reconciled

with the conquest and is determined to put up resistance to the Israeli preseuce

in their land. Their resistance manifests itself in the form of demonstrations,

graffiti, improvised leaflets, sometimes scribbled in handwriting recognizable as

coming from a school-child, on a sheet torn from a school copybook. Occasionally,

however, the manifestations of resistance can be more violent, like burning of

tires or throwing of stones upon the bearers of the "presence"; i.e., the IDF

soldiers or the Border Guards. The "shots in the air" with the purpose of killing,

as well as the numerous casualties of the last year have by and large failed to

intimidate the youngsters.

Anybody familiar with the behavior of children and adolescents under any foreign occupation is bound to realize that attempts at their intimidation will not

work, when their hurt national pride and their frustrations stemming from total

denial of political rights are subject to a comparison with the news of liberation of

other nations which reach the ears of the youngsters recurrently. What is going on

is the ninth and the hugest of all the tides : so that an.vbodv with feeling and conscience, in particular anybody who still remembers Jewish children as they matured in the struggle against the British, is bound to realize that there is no

solution except to grant the legitimate rierhts for which the children are struggling.

In the course of the last year, I have followed this tide, as a professional and

as a human being. I have been watching this generation brought en masse to

courts and fined for hundreds of thousands of Israeli pounds. By law, it is the

fathers, refugees themselves, who are responsible for delivery of the payments.

But in the event of their failure, it is the children who go to jail.

On March 18, 1976, I saw a group of about 20 youths in the military court of

Hebron. The bruises on their faces and arms bore testimony to the treatment

they had received from the guardians of the law. One of them had his hand in a

cast; another had a badly swollen eye which he could hardly open. The same

day in the vicinity of the Tomb of Patriarchs, I extricated from the hands of

IDF soldiers a boy who lost consciousness as a result of blows he received at his

own home in the course of a meal. We accompanied him to a local hospital. In

that hospital, I learned that in demonstrations of March 17. dogs were let loose

against the demonstrators. The doctors told me, not only of having had to treat

people bitten by the dogs, but also of having been themselves beaten by the soldiers

while trying to provide medical care to the injured in the streets. About this they

issued a special written statement.
171

I will never forget the swollen and bruised face of Jamil Abu-Gharbiyeh, with

drops of blood falling from his eyes, as he came to my office right after having been

released from detention at the site of a demonstration. Certainly, evidence was

not missing when he made his appearance in the court.

In juvenile court trials in Jerusalem I was defending several thirteen years

old girl students from the Kalandia refugee camp, as well as a boy with a hand

in cast and head in bandage. The boy testified that his injuries had been caused

by blows of the policemen. The police witness denied that any beating had taken

place. The boy was found guilty and fined, with a suspended sentence. The girls

from the Kalandia camp looked downright grotesque in the setting of the court,

when the judge was pontificating about threats which they pose to security and

about necessities of deterrence. A boy tried on the same day, with whose family

I am acquainted, was refused bail, due to which he could not see his gravely ill

mother. She later died while he was still under lock. Finally, fined and with a

suspended sentence, he went straight from jail to attend her funeral. There he

saw her, as she was no longer alive.

These are the lucky ones, entitled to the assistance of a legal counsel. But most

of the youths are being brought to what could be aptly called "field trials" which

take place at night, in the atmosphere of terror, with no counsel present. Not even

the representatives of the International Red Cross are able to monitor such trials.

The youths are crowding the jails to the full capacity. When no room is left,

they are being transferred to a recently erected lockup in the village of Khawarah

in the vicinity of Nablus. Thus we can see that all the jails combined together do

not have sufficient space to accommodate all the protesters against the conquest,

in particular the juvenile ones.

About a month ago in Nablus, I met a boy by the name of Franjih El-Massri

who left the jail after three months of confinement. He told me about beatings

to which he was subjected. He also told me that he was arrested not at all during

a demonstration but at home. From him I learned about his friends Hassan

Othman and Mahed Abdo, each of which also got three months of confinement and

a fine of IL8,00O.

In Tul-Karem I defended two boys from Salfid accused of having pulled down

the Israeli flag from the Salfid police station building, in retaliation against the

desecration of the Koran in the tomb of the Patriarch by the settlers from Kiriat

Arba during the last year's Day of Atonement. The youths•Abd El-Fateh Nazmi,

Abd El-Fateh and Muhammad Shahin•were lucky to find a considerate judge

who sentenced each of them to two years of prison, thereof nine months effective,

even though the prosecutor demanded three years.

During the same session of the court, an orphan boy by the name of Kheiri

Ghanem from the village of Deir El-Gabon was under trial for having raised,

together with other boys from his village, the Palestinian flag during a demonstration. I submitted that the desire for a flag of one's own should be self-evident

for anyone who has ever gone through the experience of a struggle for independence and freedom. This boy got•from the mentioned considerate judge•"only"

IL 1,500 of a fine and three months of suspended sentence. The prosecuting attorney commented that had the boy been tried by a strict judge, as the majority

are, he would receive a particularly severe punishment, in conformity with the

attitude of the authorities towards the Palestinian flag.

Often the soldiers or the Border Guards, of whom some may have been hit by

stones, work off their bad tempers upon Arab passers-by, even though the latter

may not have the faintest idea that a demonstration is elsewhere taking place.

Something like this I saw two months ago in Nablus. A Border Guard whom I

met in the building of the military government, complained that his leg had been

struck by a stone while he was dispersing a demonstration which took place on

that day in Nablus. "I will smash the bones of anybody whom I see," he screamed.

An opportunity was not slow in coming. I watched him as he went onto the main

street, stopped two young passers-by and escorted them to a small check-point

cubicle. I was in the same cubicle, in the company of a Red Cross representative,

awaiting the opening of court proceedings. The boys from a near-by village could

not even understand what was demanded of them. He took their papers, and in

response to their claim that they knew of no demonstration, he yelled, "They are

all filthy liars!" It was only due to my intervention and to the presence of the

Red Cross representative that the boys were left alone.

Recently the authorities embarked upon new methods of repression designed to

deter the refugee camp children and adolescents from participating in demonstra-
172

tions and even from manifesting in any manner whatsoever their emotions about

the occupation. The soldiers are now coming to refugee camps, gathering the

children and youngsters together, hitting them with sticks up to the point of

making them bleed, threatening the small children with snakes, calling on families in the middle of the night, and often arresting the children without any

charge. This is what happened in the Balatta refugee camp, renamed "Tel ElZalatar", located in the Nablus region. The names of some youths who were thus

beaten, some of whom were subsequently also brought to trial, are: Mahmoud

Abd-Alla, Khader Mahmoud, Abd El-Ghani Issah, 16, convicted to one year of

prison and the fine of IL 10,000 and Ziyad Dajani who got nine months of prison or

IL 10,000 of fine.

Included in the last wave of arrests that took place in the proximity of this

camp were dozens of students. A delegation of mothers came to my office to request help from me personally and from the Human Rights League. They described

to me their children's and their own sufferings. They told me about Subhi Mahmoud Nimr Issah, arrested four times and badly beaten without being seen by

a magistrate; about Mussa Halil Shariyeh, 12, arrested with the whole group of

boys aged 11-13. The mothers also told me about how the students are being transferred from their schools to other schools in remote places, so as to intimidate and

immobilize them.

The mothers appeal to our hearts and consciences. They represent thousands of

mothers in the conquered territories. The list of youngsters from Nablus and

Ramallah who have been arrested, beaten and tried is appended. Even though

the list is neither complete nor updated, it is indicative of the scope of the problem. It is also indicative of the justice of the cause towards which nobody who is

truly human can remain indifferent.

APPENDIX

A list of some pupils, with their ages, who were arrested and put on trial in

two towns only of the West Bank, Nablus and Ramallah. The first 47 pupils are

from Nablus, the rest from Ramallah.

1. Abed Almana'am Ra'ab Tibawi, 15 years old.

2. Bal'al Alazizi, 15 years old.

3. Samar Muhammad Samaru, 16 years old.

4. Iman Jusuf Dahar, 15 years old.

5. Nadal Hassan Zaki Asalan, 15 years old.

6. Khalil Abed Allatif Sa'ad Aldin. 14 years old.

7. Taisir Muhammad Qassem Shtubela, 16 years old.

8. Samar Kamhiya, 15 years old.

9. Jamal Istaniya, 16 years old.

10. Nagi Muhammad Jusuf Khaliliya, 16 years old.

11. Balal Hiron, 15 years old.

12. Maryan Makhluf, 16 years old.

13. Majdi Alabar, 15 years old.

14. Saber Khamdi Sakef Alkayat, 16 years old.

15. Ahmad Abed Alani Alafari, 16 years old.

16. Ahmad Fa'iz Khader, 16 years old.

17. Ibrahim Al'iwi, 15 years old.

18. Umar Mafid Abed Alkarim Umar, 16 years old.

19. Said Walid Mera'i, 16 years old.

20. Sa'adi Walid Mera'i, 14 years old.

21. Dawud Mustapha Alsalelibi, unknown.

22. Zi'ad Khumad Alshaml, 15 years old.

23. Muhammad Nazar El Bazara, 15 years old.

24. Khal Zaheir Tabila, 15 years old.

25. Ju'ad Salim Alkhamad, 17 years old.

26. Balal Bakr Alkhanbali, 15 years old.

27. Khamdi Basal Kanafan, 16 years old.

28. Qassem Suleiman Alshanar, 15 years old.

29. Khalid Mera'i Ahmad Karkash, 15 years old.

30. Khamad Ibrahim Alqusa, 16 years old.

31. Maji Muhammad Jusuf, unknown.

32. Khani Zaki Alsallan Alafuri, 15 years old.
173

33. Jamal Abed El-Ra'uf Ra'ab Fatian, 16 years old.

34. A'ataf Mustafa Fatian, 15 years old.

35. Jusuf Ahmad Jusuf Alasa, 15 years old.

36. Naziya Adal Daruza, 16 years old.

37. Bishar Bazi Alaskari, 17 years old.

38. Zuheir Ahmad Albahash, 14 years old.

39. Bassam Rashid Albahash, 16 years old.

40. Ma'azan Umar Mahmud Fartaldin, 18 years old.

41. Ahmad Abed Alani Alafuri, 15 years old.

42. Muhammad Na'ayuf Riad Faher Naif, 15 years old.

43. Fathi Mahmud Ahmad, 16 years old.

44. Mahmud Darwish Alshashtri, 16 years old.

45. Mahdi Yatti Abed Alkhak, 16 years old.

46. Jusuf Ahmad Hassan, 17 years old.

47. Abed Alkarim Abed Aljalil, 17 years old.

48. Nur Aldabukh Badawi Sanduka.

49. Nahada Badwai Sanduka.

50. Fatkhiya Uda Shahada Muslakh.

51. Ataf Umar Iakub Abu Atiyeh.

52. Talal Abed Almalik Muhammad Hassan Uda.

53. Muhammad Iyub Iakub.

54. Khamad Kamal Khalil Khamad.

55. Anwar Munir Iakub Alkura.

56. Nabil Ibramim Khalil Abu Ha.

57. Abed Alrahim Hassan Khamdan.

58. Muhammad Umar Alkhatib.

59. Khalil Jusuf Khalil Alsarati.

60. Jamal Mahmud Alkhamus.

61. Muhammad Iman Hassan Mussa Uda.

62. .1 aim r Hassni Khasin Aljamal.

63. Jamal Hassan Ahmad Zaid.

64. Bassam Sa'adi Ab Qweik.

65. Ramadan Hassan Ibrahim.

66. As'ad Muhammad Ahmad Mustafa.

67. Abdalla Hassan Muhammad Sulama.

NOTE.•The particular ages of the Ramallah pupils could not be ascertained,

but they are all in the age-group of 14-17 years old. Mo»t of the pupils mentioned

in this list have been "sentenced" already, by the military courts (usually in

batches of ten-twenty children at an hour session of the "court"). The usual

"sentence" is 10,000 Israeli pounds fine. Those suspected of being "agitators"

receive prison sentence in addition. For comparison the pay of a worker is about

1500-2000 IP a month, in the West Bank. Until the "sentence" the children can

spend several weeks, and even months, in prison in the most atrocious conditions.

Israel Shahak.

REPORT ON THE OPPRESSION IN RAMALLA AND EL-BIREH, MARCH 1977

(Eytan Grosfeld and Dr. Israel Shahak)

When the prisoners in the Ashkelon Jail have recommenced again their

hunger strike (after their first hunger strike of 45 days, got the following concessions from the prison administration: The addition of almonds and combs

to the list of the products the prisoners are allowed to buy in the prison canteen) many more organizations and individuals have joined the struggle for

humane living conditions of the political prisoners in Ashkelon Jail. Against

the self-imposed conspiracy of silence of the Israeli press and the silence imposed by the aggressive censorship on the Arab press of East-Jerusalem, many

new activities for the prisoners were undertaken.

So, many thousands of leaflets were distributed, petitions demanding the

immediate satisfaction of the just demands of the prisoners were circulated,

the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights has published (in Hebrew) a

special pamphlet in which reports of the lawyers about the condition of the
174

prisoners were reproduced; importnat knowledge was sent to many organizations and individuals in countries outside Israel. Many were asked for their

intervention, and several demonstrations, meetings, press-contacts, and protests of all kinds were undertaken. Among those, a hunger-strike of three days

undertaken in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in sympathy with the

strikers can be emphasized.

But such protests were not limited to the area within the Green Line, where

they can be undertaken with relative impunity. Many protests•some unknown

to us•were undertaken in the conquered areas as well. The prisoners of the

Jenin Ramalla and Hebron-El-Khalil Jails have also struck, both in form of

hunger-strike and work-strike.

In the College of Bir-Zeit a strike of the students was held and the Border

Guards arrived and put the town in a state of occupation. In Bast-Jerusalem

several demonstrations held by the pupils of the high schools, were cruelly put

down. The (illegal) committee of the students of Bethlehem University has

published a statement, and called on all the students to hold a solidarity

hunger-strike from 9 till 11 March, which was duly kept by all the students

and the teachers. Somebody has flown the Palestinian flag over the University

buildings on 10 March and the University was immediately surrounded by

troop-carriers and by tanks. Border Guards entered the University to take down

the "illegal" flag and have interrogated•with the attendant "normal beatings"•

the students and the teachers, as to "who are the agitators". Many other such

activities could be related.

This is the background to what happened in Aamalla and El-Bireh, in

March 1977, to the series of pogroms whose victims were equally the highschool students and the elected members of the municipalities. The description comes partly from the wounded victims lying in the Augusta-Victoria

Hospital in Jerusalem, and partly from members of the municipality and other

eyewitnesses.

On Saturday, 5 March 1977, a meeting1to express the solidarity with the

Ashkelon prisoners, was held in the courtyard of the Boys High-School "ElHashimiya" in El-Bireh. Some speeches were made, songs were sung by the

participants, and then the pupils entered the classes to learn as usual.

On Monday, 7 March, at about 7 in the morning, when the first students had

arrived in the school, they were surprised to find it surrounded by many Border

Guards with five troop-carriers. The Border Guards demanded from each student to show them an identification card (if older than 16, otherwise a special

"student card"). The students, after passing the check, entered the courtyard

and began to sing freedom songs. The Deputy-Governor of Ramalla Area, Mr.

Morris, has demanded that they should cease to sing and enter the classrooms.

When they refused, a profusion of tear-gas grenades was thrown into the courtyard of the school. Some of the students threw stones back, and the DeputyGovernor ordered his forces to charge. The Border Guards chased the students

into the classes and threw more tear-gas bombs in all parts of the building. All)

the students were caught and were, again, made to concentrate in the courtyard. They were ordered to sit or to lay on the ground and to put their hands

on the nape of their necks, while the Border Guards, and the soldiers who

also arrived, hit them on all parts of their bodies with the clubs with which

they were provided.

After this, Mr. Morris demanded again all the identification papers of all

the students (about 200) in the courtyard, and with their help, he divided the

students into three groups.

The first group, of about 20 students, was immediately taken by the soldiers

into Ramalla Jail. On leaving, the students (whose ages like all the others

were 14 to 18) were ordered to pass between two long rows of soldiers, between

the courtyard and the street, and each of them was beaten by the soldiers,

while the rest of the students looked on. They are still in the prison, and their

families were officially notified that they will spend a month in jail and after

this another month! Also the families were notified on 9 March, that as an

additional punishment they will not be allowed to stand for their examinations.

Many of those students are wounded.

The second group, of about 75 students, was taken through the streets of Ramalla and beaten on their march through the streets, to the old stables of the

1

It must be remembered that all meetings whatsoever arc illegal in the conquered territories.
175

Bamalla police station. Those stables have a floor slightly below the ground

level The floor was flooded with water and the students were compelled to sit in

the water, and to remain so for the greater part of the day, which was a cold

one, and then sent home.

The third group•the remainder•was just beaten up and then sent home.

The apparent criteria for this selection made by Mr. Morris in person, were the

family names of the students ("In your family there is one prisoner" "Your

family causes us trouble," etc.).

During this beating-up and selection, some of the parents arrived looking

for their sons, and assembled before the school. Many of the students were

already wounded and from some of them copious blood poured down. When Mr.

Morris was told about the parents, he ordered the bleeding students to clean

the blood from their faces and hands. They refused. He then ordered, as a

gesture, to take five among them to the governmental hospital of Bamalla. Many

among the crowd of the parents wept when they have seen them, and when the

first and the second group of the pupils were taken out of the school and beaten-up

as described above. One of them, a very old man, dared to ask the soldiers and

the Border Guards not to beat the students, on seeing one of them fainting and

falling in the street unconscious (of the first group). The Border Guards, in

response have beaten the old man too, "revived" the fainting boy with further

blows, and taken also the old man together with the first group straight to

Ramalla Jail.

Dr. Azmi Shueibi, a member of the municipal council of El-Bireh, hastened to

the school on hearing what happens there. He asked to speak to Mr. Morris, but

instead of being allowed to do so, was publicly beaten-up by a Border Guard

officer known as "Abu-Talal",2a personage well known in the area, and also

known to Dr. Shueibi.

The Border Guards surrounded Dr. Shueibi and by force kept his hands twisted

behind his back, while "Abu-Talal" repeatedly hit him on his cheek, while cursing

him in the foulest language in Arabic. After this, Dr. Shueibi was compelled to

lie on his face in the street, and that Abu-Talal together with other Border

Guards and soldiers trod on him, until he fainted. He was then dragged into the

school courtyard by the Border Guards, by his legs (all this in the sight of the

crowd of the parents and others) and left to awaken there. Then Mr. Morris

addressed him ironically saying: "I am sorry, we have thought that you are a

student too!" Dr. Shueibi answered: "And if I am a student, so what! Is there

any guilt in that?" As a reward of this "impudence." he was beaten by the

Border Guards again, while Mr. Morris ordered them in Hebrew to beat him up,

and in Arabic not to beat him.

Some of the teachers had related that on the arrival of Dr. Shueibi, Mr.

Morris immediately ordered "Abu Talal" : "Beat-up Dr. Shueibi, here he comes !"

Dr. Shueibi was then freed, and was taken to the hospital, and a certificate

of the doctors who have attended him is available. After his wounds were attended to, he went to he municipality building in order to report to the mayor.

Dr. Shueibi, the mayor, and another member of the municipality decided to go to

the school immediately and to help as much as passible.3 However the school

was already empty of students, and occupied only by Mr. Morris and some soldiers.

Immediately on their arrival, the soldiers, prompted apparently by Mr. Morris,

began to curse the mayor, Mr. Tawil and his companions in Arabic. Mr. Tawil

was seized, hit on his back and also on his brow where a very visible mark

remained. Mr. Morris refused to talk with them.

Mr. Tawil and the councillors went then to the Military Government Centre

(in Ramalla) and asked to speak with the governor, who was absent. While

waiting, a phone call from the governor arrived ordering Dr. Shueibi to appear

before him at 13.00 o'clock. Mr. Tawil, the mayor, was similarly ordered to

appear before him at 14.30. When Dr. Shueibi entered the governor's office•

and that governor's custom is to receive his Palestinian callers while putting his

legs on the table, playing all the time either with his revolver or with his

"Shabriye" (curved dagger)•he was not allowed to say anything but was just

told : "You will be put on trial for hitting an officer of Border Guard, Abu-Talal."

It should be explained that Dr. Shueibi is short and thin, while "Abu-Talal" has a

most athletic body. Dr. Shueibi was then ordered to leave the room.

2 An Israeli Druze. It seems that this is a nickname. Thetrue name is unknown. 3 The whole process of concentrating the students, the beatings, the selection et cetera, took hours.
176

At 14.30 all the members of the three municipalities, Ramalla, El-Bireh and

Deir-Dabuan arrived before the governor's office in order to talk with him about

the beatings that happened that day. Punctually at that time, Mr. Morris, the

Deputy-Governor, opened the door of the governor's office, and ordered all the

assembled representatives, twenty five of them, to leave immediately since it is

not the pleasure of the governor to see them. One of the Eamalla councillors,

tried to tell Mr. Morris that they are prepared to wait the governor's pleasure,

only to be told again to go out.

The expelled councillors of the three townships decided to strike on the next

day, Tuesday 8 March, and indeed the municipalities closed down that day.

The strike was general in all the three cities. On that day some sixty (60)

students held in Ramalla prison, from former occasions were brought before a

quick military "trial", if one can use such a word about what actually happens

on such occasions. There was no formal or informal accusation of any kind. No

opportunity for any consultation with lawyers or parents was allowed. Each

student was merely asked "Do you confess?" without being even told about

what or to what he should confess or what law he has broken. Everyone who

said "I confess", received automatically a fine of 1,000 IP. Everyone who said

"I do not confess" received immediately a fine of 2,500 IP. By the way such

"trials" are now the norm in the West-Bank, so far as youth and children are

concerned, and indeed happen very frequently.

On 9 March 1977, the students or Men's Teachers Training Center, near

Ramalla, held another demonstration of solidarity with the prisoners of Ashkelon

Jail. Border guards and soldiers, commanded by Mr. Morris, arrived and began

to surround the building, while some students attempted to escape into the hills

around it. However some 200 Border Guards were behind the hills in ambush,

who have begun to chase the students even shooting at some of them, and on

catching them, beating them up. At least 17 students were seriously wounded in

the hills, and many others in the building itself, in the beating administered

under the supervision of Mr. Morris. 18 gravely wounded students were transferred into the Augusta-Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem, and about 20

wounded students into Ramalla Jail. Eytan Grosfeld has spoken with 12 of the

students in Augusta-Victoria on 10 March. Here is his description of what he

has seen and heard:

"Sights of horror awaited me, when the wounded students took-off their

clothes and have shown me their bodies. The sight of severe beatings were clearly

visible. The wounded told me the following story, common to all of them. 'The

demonstration has begun about 9.15. After the Centre was surrounded by troopcarriers, then about 10.00 some five tear-gas bombs were shot into the centre

and the soldiers and Border Guards charged-in. Some students escaped into the

hills and have found there another unit of soldiers. The students who were

caught, were beaten by clubs specially on their heads, hands and feet (many

of the students have a hand or a leg broken). A special attempt•which was

quite successful•was made to break their teeth.

After the beating, the soldiers took-off the students' belts, bound them in

threes with the belts and dragged them into the specially prepared concentration

place. There they were told to lie down and beaten again. A major who has

arrived there, ordered his soldiers, not to beat further one of the students who

has lost much blood, saying that he is afraid lest he will die, and even took off the

student's shirt to staunch the blood from his head. At the same time another

student was dragged towards him bound with his belt and was beaten up. Since

not much blood flowed, the major did not interfere in this case.

Many officers and soldiers continued to beat up the bound students, attempting, and succeeding in many cases, to break-up the bones of their hands. 'Abu

Talal' was one of the successful ones. He had personally broken the hand of

one of the students, and wrenehed-out the joints from their socket of the other

hand, as was confirmed by the x-ray photograph. Some soldiers wanted to shoot

a tear-gas bomb into the bound students group, but 'Abu Talal' ordered not to

do this, and instead continued with others, the beatings, saying to the soldiers

'If you will not break-up those hands that had thrown stones, Morris will not

be content.' When told by one of the students that both his hands are broken

already, he began to smash his leg.

The students were held bound in that 'concentration place' for more than an

hour. During that time another officer arrived, identified by the soldiers as

their commander. He inspected the students and observing 3-4 of them bleeding
177

from their heads, he ordered not to beat them any more on their heads, but to

continue to do so on their legs and hands. One of the soldiers pointed out with

his finger at one of the students saying 'He hit back at me'. The officer then

personally administered a beating to the student who was pointed out. Then

under his supervision, the students were ordered to lie with their hands outstretched while the soldiers began to hit them with clubs, on their hands. Some

ten clubs were broken in this process, but reserve clubs were prepared beforehand. When a soldier got tired, another took his place, and everything was done

as a game, with accompanying laughter and jokes. After this treatment lasted

some time, the method was changed and the students were beaten by the butts of

the rifles on their bellies and their private parts. Some were dragged by hair.

Finally the students were ordered to go into the troop-carriers, bound still by

their necks one to another, by belts or by thick ropes, while the soldiers ordered

them by expressions used ordinarily in Palestine to speed-up sheep or camels.

Some were incapable of going in•they were further beaten until they have 'succeeded' to climb the vehicle.

One of the students was so horribly beaten-up in this process that his comrades have put him in a corner and defended him with their own bodies, so that

he will be beaten less•for the beating continued inside the troop-carriers. One

of the soldiers, went up to him, found him fainting and announced that he will

die. The rest of the students were ordered to sing in the troop-carriers. The

Border Guards sang too•"Yalla, Beitar, Yalla" * Every second "Yalla" was

accompanied by a concerted hit with clubs on the bound students. When the

students refused to sing they were beaten more, and also ordered to thank the

Border Guards for the beatings, or to curse Allah or the Prophet Muhammad.

One of the students was specially beaten when it was perceived that he understands Hebrew. Another who shouted too loudly when his tooth was broken

by a club, was hit on his head and suffers from concussion.

On arrival of the troop-carriers in the courtyard of the Military Government,

the officers and the soldiers came out to congratulate on the successful operation. The students were ordered to stand against one of the walls of the courtyard, and there all their watches were systematically smashed-up, and they were

compelled, each of them to say 'thank you' after the smashing-up. One of them

tried to put his watch in his pocket, but was compelled to take it out again, to put

it on his hand, in order to be smashed on the hand in a proper way. The beatings

continued even there. One of the students was signaled there by 'Abu-Talal' for

a special beating-up on his testicles 'In order that you will be incapable to bring

forth any more Palestinian children', as he 'explained'. Then the students were

allowed to sit down on the ground on condition that they will never raise their

heads up. They then received a pail of dirty water with rags used to clean the

floor and were ordered to clean themselves by these. On asking for water to drink,

they were told to drink the same water. Also technical hydrochloric acid (called

'fire water' in spoken Arabic) diluted with water, was given to them for the

purpose of the disinfection of their wounds.

At that time three girl-soldiers, arrived from the governor's offices to see

the show, laughing and joking. To make the sight more funny, the girls asked

the soldiers to order a student, with help of a beating, to raise one of his legs and

to keep it so, or to stand on one leg or to take another funny posture. Those

requests were fulfilled, and the students were compelled to carry them out.

Here let me give a story of one of the students, who got a completely individual treatment. He left the Centre before the demonstration had begun and went

up the street into the town. From one of the arriving troop-carriers a tear-gas

bomb was thrown on him and on a small boy, of about the age of ten (10) years,

who passed. Both fell on the ground. Soldiers arrived from the troop-carrier and

beat-up both, but only the student was taken to the troop-carrier, where his

blood dirtied the floor. This made the soldiers very angry and they beat him up

further for this 'crime' and compelled him to clean the floor. The troop-carrier

went up with the captive to the police station of Ramalla, where the police officer in charge demanded to stop the beating, since the student has lost much

blood. He was then transferred to the courtyard of the Military Government

Centre, where he joined the others.

After a time in the courtyard, a military doctor arrived who asked the soldiers

to stop the beatings. He was not obeyed and he has left. Afterwards the director

1

"Beitar Jerusalem" a favourite football team connected with the Herut Party.
178

of the Men's Teachers Training Centre arrived. Mr. Morris went out to him,

and the very first thing, threatened him, that if he will dare to notify journalists

of what happened, the Centre will be closed. Morris was very angry when the

director proposed to take the wounded into hospital, and said that only firsthelp is what they need, and afterwards they should be put in prison. But after

a further insistence by the director who is an UNRHA official, he agreed to

allow to take some of them to hospital. A 'test' was arranged immediately, by

Morris, as to who of the students really needs hospitalization, which consisted of

the 'ability'•as judged by Morris•of a student to raise his hands behind his

head. Those, who when doing this exercise, were judged by Morris to be 'really

ill', were allowed to go to an UNRRA bus, which has arrived, but only after

Morris assembled them to hear a lecture which was: 'So they have inflated you

(for by this time most of them were swollen) ? You have enough now.' Then the

bus brought them to hospital.

All the wounded have on their backs horrifying scars, caused by clubs. Generally the scars resemble two sides of a triangle, since most students were beaten

simultaneously by two soldiers, one on the right and one on the left side, while

being compelled to bend, or to lie on the ground. The color and swelling is specially

terrible where the two scars meet. A common scar is about 20 cm. long, 2-5 cm.

broad, red, with shades of blue or violet or yellow on the sides of it. Of the many

wounded inspected (both in Augusta-Victoria and other places by both the

authors!) we do not remember one single person who did not have such scars•

apart of other wounds of course, which vary•which in our opinion shows training and prior orders.

In addition many can show similar scars, which however caused greater

physical harm on the sides of their bellies, on their shoulders and on their necks.

It seems to us that the average number of scars on each person's back is about

ten (10) arranged as explained. Many other wounds were already bandaged, of

course. Enormous swellings appeared on the hands and on the feet (of those

whose hands were not broken). It could be seen that a special effort was made by

the soldiers to hit the right hand more than the left. One of the students has

both of his legs and his hands broken so he cannot move at all, not because of

concussion but because of broken bones. He was one of those beaten by 'AbuTalal' personally. He is also wounded in his testicles. Another has his elbow

opened up to the bone (as the nurses and the doctors who bandaged him told

me). The 'ordinary' broken bones are too many to describe." So far Eytan

Grosfeld.

During the whole week following 9 March, similar treatment was given not

only to students, but to the grown-up population in the whole area of Ramalla.

For example: On 10 March, at 10.00 o'clock, Border Guards commanded by Mr.

Morris attacked the Refugee Camp El-Amari, in the southern part of El-Bireh,

because, so Mr. Morris claimed, somebody has thrown a stone on a passing

Israeli taxi. People were taken out of their houses, mostly males, "concentrated" and beaten-up exactly as described above. One wounded man from this

"operation" is hospitalized in the Ramalla Hospital. Immediately when people

heard about this, pupils from all the schools in the area had begun to fly to

their homes.

Many other instances of such operations both in the towns and the villages of

Ramalla area could be given. But since they were the same basically as those

described above, we will only describe two operations in which there is an element of novelty.

On 16 March, some 150 parents of high school students were ordered to come to

the Military Government Centre in Ramalla, with their children. On their

arrival at 1400 o'clock, their identification cards were taken from them, and

they were ordered to sit on the ground in the parking-lot of the Military Government Centre from 1400 to 2400, and then were dismissed home•without their

identification cards. It so happened, that very many people from villages around

Ramalla were invited' to the Military Government on that day, and officers or

clerks used to take them out and to show them the waiting guarded crowd of

parents and children, saying "This happens to the people we do not like". Many

old and ill people among the detained parents•including an old aunt of the

mayor of Ramalla, Mr. Karim Khalaf•were not allowed to leave in spite of their

sufferings. On 17 March, when the girls of the Ramalla High School sang songs,

a unit of Border Guards entered the classes and threw gas-bombs, of an apparently new kind which caused prolonged nausea in addition to the usual weeping,

etc. More than forty (40) girls needed hospitalization.
179

We should also remark that the number of the wounded, is much greater than

the number of those hospitalized; since tihose of the people who succeed to escape

the soldiers or the Border Guards are afraid even to visit a hospital, knowing that

the Military Government inspects the hospitals during such periods as described,

and everyone who will be discovered there with signs or scars of a beating, will

be imprisoned.

Finally, as a sign of how much this reality, or small portion of it, is perceived by

the Israeli "public opinion", we will finish with two apparently unrelated

quotations:

In Ha'aretz of 18 March 1977 Dr. Amnon Cohen, the Chairman of the Department for the History of Islamic Countries in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has written in an article about the PLO: "The process of the normalization of the relations between the inhabitants of the areas6

is not liked by the

PLO." It must be understood that for all the Zionists, and specially for their

"Arabists", or specialists for Arab or Islamic Affairs, what happened in Ramalla

is "a process of normalization."

In Ha'aretz and Jerusalem Post of 14 March, the Israeli Council for the

Israeli-Palestinian Peace published an advertisement claiming that Faruk Qaddumi hinders the peace. It should be emphasized that neither this body of cheats

and hyprocrites, nor any one of its members has said in public one word about

what happened in Ramalla and Bl-Bireh. From this one can draw the conclusion

that in their opinion, neither the military governor of Ramalla Area, nor his

deputy Morris, nor the one in charge of territories Mr. Skimon Peres, and of course

not the beatings (which for them do not exist!) hinder the peace, but only what

Mr. Qaddumi said or did not say. It is because those disgusting hypocrites, participate in the conspiracy of silence, ordered and organized by the Israeli government, that they can boast of their "good relations" with this government of

sadistic oppressors. We, on the other hand, boast, that in these difficult times,

we are not silent when children are beaten because they desire freedom and

struggle for it!

VIOLATIONS OP HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WEST BANK : REPORT BY A Swiss LEAGUE

FOB HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVATION MISSION, UNDERTAKEN JUNE 26 TO JULY 2,1977

In going to the West Bank, our delegation had no other purpose but to form

a concrete idea concerning the situation of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. Therefore, our objective here is not to develop theories or make legalistic

or political evaluations, but to re-state, as faithfully as possible, the evidence

collected by us and the observations noted.

If the great similarity in the evidence gathered has led to some generalizations

on our part, the reader should take note that the present report is no more than

an account of facts that have been described and verified.

We have categorically rejected cases of isolated testimony, assertions lacking

certainty, developments uncorroborated by actual and verifiable facts, and we

have only retained the facts that we ourselves were able to observe, or those concerning which we heard testimony and which we were able to verify by crosschecking the evidence several times.

Thus, we were forced to discard important information which we were not in

a position to verify.

If the present report contains practically no names of persons, the reasons

are quite obvious and are due to our concern for the safety of our witnesses;

nevertheless, our delegation has retained only evidence submitted by persons

whose identity was known to it.

We draw the reader's attention to the fact that the present report concerns

itself only with the situation affecting human rights in the occupied West Bank,

and not with the situation in Israel proper.

We have adopted United Nations terminology insofar as the term "occupied

territories" is concerned, as well as with regard to the appropriate vocabulary

used to describe the situation of the Palestinians living in the West Bank.

WEST BANK MUNICIPALITIES

Our delegation was able to talk with various municipal officials in the towns

of West Jordan ; in particular, it was received by the mayor of Jericho, the mayor

of Ramallah, the mayor of El-Bira and the deputy mayor of Bethlehem.

5 That Is the conquered areas.
180

From these conversations, the following stands out:

1. The authority of the mayors of Arab towns in the West Bank extends only

over municipal questions, the real power being in the hands of the Israeli military governor.

2. The municipalities have practically no funds to dispose of, except for the

assistance extended for social ends by various Arab states. Additionally, It

should be emphasized that entry into Israel of such funds is extremely difficult,

and that substantial sums are lying dormant in Jordanian banks, awaiting the

possibility of being transferred to municipalities in the West Bank, if authorization can be obtained from the military authorities.

3. The social infra-structure is largely missing and the municipalities lack the

means of acquiring the necessary equipment. To cite an example, the town of

Bethlehem (population 35,000) has no fire-flghting vehicles.

4. The mayors are often denied permits to leave the occupied territories, even

to respond to invitations from foreign countries or municipalities, or to travel

abroad to raise funds for assistance. It is to be noted that the majority of towns

in the West Bank are "twinned" with foreign towns and that the occupying

authorities prohibit exchanges between the twin localities.

5. The function of mayor or that of municipal counsellor does not provide immunity, for those who hold it, against arbitrary arrest, pressure of all sorts or

even deportation. The same applies to candidates for office in municipal elections.

6. During the period when the now-occupied territories were under Jordanian

sovereignty, the mayor who has inherited ancient traditions exercised the customary power of conciliating or settling family disputes. This judiciary function

has been abolished by the occupying power.

TERRITORIAL EXPANSION

From various depositions, as well as on-the-spot observations which we ourselves were able to make directly, it is evident that expropriation of numerous

houses or of land owned by Arabs is a current practice in the West Bank, and is

of such magnitude as to lead one to think that the underlying motive is a political

one, that is confiscation, pure and simple, of the occupied territories by the Israeli

authorities.

The following examples may be cited:

1. An inhabitant from Bethany found himself notified by official letter of the

expropriation of his land against indemnification. No useful public service was

cited as the reason for the act of expropriation. He was left with no choice but

to either accept it, and to risk being regarded as a traitor in the eyes of his

compatriots, or to refuse it as more and more Palestinians are doing.

2. For over three months, the village of Deir Abu Mishal, the geographic location of which is strategically important, has been the target of violent incursions

by Israeli troops, who shoot automatic rifles into the air and break windows and

doors. The terrorized inhabitants, who seek refuge on the rooftops are unable to

sleep at night and are forced to rest a few hours during the day, which puts them

in a state wherein they are unable to pursue their daily chores. The obvious objective of this operation is to coerce the inhabitants into evacuating the village,

or to justify using force to evict them should they react violently to the nocturnal

raids by the Israeli troops.

3. A neighborhood of Arab houses, situated between Jericho and the Jordan

River, was occupied by the Israeli Army in 1967, and again in 1973. During the

latter occupation, the Israeli Army totally destroyed the interior of the houses,

even carrying off the furniture, leaving nothing in place except walls and roofs.

All the inhabitants have departed, fearing a renewed occupation.

4. In the proximity of the town of Ramallah, the Army has taken over a

hill which abuts the water reservoir belonging to the town of El-Bira.

5. Starting at Bethlehem Hill, the view of the Old City of Jerusalem, encircled

following expropriation by buildings constructed for Jews only, is indicative of

the determination of the Jewish State to retain the West Bank.

6. Near Hebron we visited the town of Quiryat Arba, which its typical example

of the Jewish settlements established in the West Bank.

7. Several persons confirmed to us, by citing precise cases, that not only have

lands and houses been confiscated, but many houses in the occupied territories,

owned by people who have been arrested or who were suspected of sympathizing with Palestinian organizations, have been demolished since 1968.
181

The various facts cited above, as well as observations made by the United

Nations, attest to the State of Israel's determination to appropriate or annex

the oociiT)ied territories.

In particular, the objective of the expropriation, the confiscation and the

demoUtion of houses is to coerce the inhabitants into leaving the West Bank.

PRISONS

In light of the numerous depositions gathered by our delegation, it is in a

position to affirm the following with regard to detention of Palestinian prisoners:

1. In extremely frequent cases, the crowded conditions in prisons reach

dramatic proportions; detainees are so crammed together that, for lack of space,

they cannot stretch on the floor to sleep. As an example, Ramallah Prison

houses 200 inmates, of whom 10 percent may be described as common law

prisoners, although its capacity does not exceed 40 inmates.

2. Several detainees have been driven to insanity under the effect of torture

practiced on them before or after their trials.

3. Arrested persons are not allowed to be in touch, either with their families or

their lawyers, so long as their interrogators remain unsatisfied with the

statements obtained from them. We encountered families that remained for

weeks ignorant of the whereabouts of some of their members.

4. Serious discrimination exists between Jewish and Palestinian detainees.

For example, in Beersheba Prison: Jews have beds while the Arabs must

sleep on the bare floor; Jews receive 4 visitors a month, while the Arabs receive

only 1; Jews may use 10 blankets, while the Arabs can only use 5 or 6, particularly during the rigorous winter months.

5. Medical and dental care are almost non-existent, or often too late, because

a detained person must inscribe his name in a list for a visit, and then await

his turn to see the doctor or dentist•usually several days later, or even weeks.

6. Imprisoned children and students have no possibility of pursuing their

studies in prison. However, the families can, in the meantime and as a general

rule, send them books through the sole intermediary of the Red Cross.

7. We gathered a great deal of evidence on eases of detention lasting several

months, without interrogation, a trial or sentence.

MILITARY TRIALS

On June 29, 1977, one of us•Me. Moutinot•was accorded the opportunity of

witnessing the trial of four Arab youths before a military court which met at Lod.

The facts, acknowledged by all, were as follows: four young Arabs, aged 16

to 17, had prepared six bottles filled with gasoline, which they had intended to

hurl at the Jews. In fact, they only threw two bottles, which caused minor wounds

to two Arabs.

The charges against the defendants, according to the 1945 Emergency Defense

Act promulgated by the British, were:

1. Military training: punishable by a seven-year prison sentence.

2. Preparation of explosive devices: punishable by a life sentence or death.

3. Transporting explosive devices: punishable by a life sentence or death.

4. Hurling explosive devices: punishable by a life sentence or death.

The court was composed of three judges, of whom one only had had a legal

education ; two of the judges were lieutenants and one a major.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL

At 9:50 a.m., the four defendants were brought into the hall handcuffed to

each other. The handcuffs were removed as soon as they were seated in the dock.

The trial took place inside a military camp. Thirty seats, allotted to the public,

were practically all occupied by relatives of the defendants.

About a dozen armed soldiers from the military police stood guard inside

the hall.

A military interpreter sporadically translated for the benefit of the defendants,

from Hebrew into Arabic. The proceedings were conducted entirely in Hebrew.

The dossier, which was a very thin one, contained mainly the confessions of

the defendants, in Hebrew, a language which the said defendants neither speak

nor understand.
182

The language of the document reflects the foregoing: phrases such as "I am

a terrorist" are put into the mouth of a defendant who would never have used

such terms, but rather would have said something like "I am a fighter for the

liberation of Palestine."

The personal dossier is almost nonexistent, except for a brief curriculum vitae.

The defendants were interrogated by the court. The only witnesses were the

security agent, who had taken down their confessions and who affirmed that the

defendants made the statements which he had recorded of their own free will, in

addition to the father and uncle of each of the defendants, who testified as to the

good character of the youths.

In an indictment lasting five minutes, the prosecution called for "a severe

penalty." The defense, undertaken by Me. Lea Tsemel, pleaded for 30 minutes,

asking for the indulgence of the court in view of the youth of the defendants. The

defense introduced the expert opinion of a chemist who demonstrated that the

bottles were not explosive, but rather incendiary devices; she insisted that the

four charges against the defendants sprang from one and the same act.

The session was adjourned at 12 :15 p.m. for lunch and for deliberation by

the court.

It returned at 14:15 and the four defendants were pronounced guilty of all the

charges, the verdict being as follows :

1. One of the defendants was sentenced to a 6-year prison term of which 2

were suspended.

2. Two of the defendants were sentenced to 5 years of which 2 and a half were

suspended.

3. The last defendant was sentenced to 2 years of which one was suspended.

It is noteworthy that there is no penitentiary in Israel for youthful offenders,

at least insofar as Arabs are concerned, and during their period of detention, all

the defendants had been raped by their co-detainees.

PRELIMINARY INQUIRY

The defendants were apprehended on April 3 and 4. Three of them were

arrested in school. All were beaten and brutalized by interrogators from the

security forces.

It is relevant to state that the inquiry is conducted entirely by the police

without any legal supervision, or the right of resort to legal aid.

The attorney may not see his client except after he has confessed, which

happened in this case, on April 17, 1977, approximately two weeks after the

arrest.

It would be pertinent to point out that the 1947 Emergency Defense Act was

passed by Great Britain during its struggle against the Jews, who at that time

described it as "Nazi-like, inhumane and contradicts all human rights," and that

currently they are enforcing this same law against the Palestinians.

TORTURE

We have gathered concurrent testimony from former prisoners, attorneys,

prisoners' families and from members of municipal authorities, attesting to the

fact that the use of torture in the West Bank is a systematic practice.

Following is a list of the different forms of torture practiced on persons

previously apprehended by the occupying authorities. It is not an exhaustive one,

and includes only the forms described to us as the most common.

Locations where torture takes place

1. Sarafand (near Tel-Aviv)

2. Hebron

3. The Russian Compound (near Jerusalem)

It appears that if torture is a common practice, these three locations are, sad

to say, famous as centers that specialize in the use of torture, as we were told

by numerous prisoners.

Forms of torture.

1. Burning by applying lighted cigarette butts to any part of the body.

2. Using irritants (powders or sprays), which cause itching or sharpen the

pain brought on by other forms of torture.

3. Beatings by sticks, canes or bludgeons.
183

4. Electric shocks applied to all parts of the body, especially and particularly

to sensitive parts (ears, genitals).

5. Forcing bottles or other objects up the rectum or the vagina.

6. Pulling finger nails.

7. A form of torture known as "the water drop," which consists of causing a

drop of water to fall at regular intervals, and for hours on end, over an individual who cannot escape it. This form of torture frequently leads to insanity.

8. Exposing an individual, in the nude, to full sunlight for hours on end.

!). The so-called balance torture, which consists of balancing an individual

for hours on end, either by strapping him to a swing or by suspending him.

10. The so-called "tiger cage," which consists of locking the individual inside

a cage too small for standing up or for stretching, so that he is forced to crouch.

The floor of the cage may be encrusted with sharp spikes.

11. Depriving an individual of sleep for several days.

12 Suspending by the feet or hands.

13. Plunging an individual in an icy bath, then plunging him in a boiling one,

and repeating the process.

14. Locking the individual inside a place with wild dogs and cats.

15. Prolonged and systematic use of lacrimatory agents.

16. Forcing an individual to lap his food directly off the floor.

These forms of torture are used mostly to obtain confessions from the apprehended person, and they continue for as long as necessary until the desired

statement is obtained. Equally, these forms of torture may be practiced with

the simple purpose of breaking the tortured person both physically and morally.

It is relevant to note, as the above demonstrates, that when conditions during

detention are particularly bad, they tend to be the equivalent of torture.

RESTRICTIONS OX MOVEMENT

West Bank inhabitants cannot move freely from place to place. The following

situation prevails:

1. Even within the West Bank itself restrictions on movement can be found,

either through forced residence inside a given area or, in a more general way,

by making moving to another place subject to authorization.

2. Several persons, especially mayors of Arab towns, complained to us that

they were denied permits allowing them to travel abroad, even if such travel

was to be undertaken in response to an invitation from abroad.

3. It can happen also that certain persons may receive permits to leave the

country, along with an interdiction prohibiting them from returning to the West

Bank.

4. We were even apprised of cases where certain persons were escorted to the

frontier, without hoi»e of return; in particular, two Arab doctors were arrested

and taken during the night to southern 1/ebnnon by helicopter.

5. Travel between Jordan and Israel via the Allenby Bridge has been made

difficult by the very fact that travelers must pay a high tax.

6. This measure binders families separated by the frontier from seeing each

other often enough, if they happen to lack the necessary financial means.

7. Visits abroad are encouraged if the person does not wish to return to the

West Bank, but they are prohibited if the voyage is simply a round trip. This

latter policy favors emigration by prohibiting contacts with the outside. AVe are

aware of the case of a young student who obtained a permit to travel to the

United States. To return to his homeland, he was required to make the trip back

within a year, something he was unable to do. He was not allowed to rejoin his

family.

CONCLUSION

Our inquiry leads one to the conclusion that the occupation of the West Bank

has brought about repeated violation of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1. The numerous arbitrary arrests, prolonged cases of detention without legal

supervision, and the deportations are flagrant violations of the provisions of

Article 3 of the Declaration.

2. Cases of enforced residence, serious restrictions on border crossing, and

prohibiting certain Palestinians from returning are all violations of the provisions of Article 13, which guarantees the right of free movement and of free
184

choice of residence and which stipulate in particular that "Everyone has the right

to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

3. The numerous violations of property rights, such as arbitrary expropriation,

the prohibiting of construction, and the demolition of buildings are inconsistent

with the provisions of Article 17 of the Declaration, which guarantees the right

to property and stipulates that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his

property."

4. Torture is commonly and systematically practiced, in contradiction of the

principles of law, and in particular Article 5 of the Universal Declaration.

5. The flagrant inequalities between Jews and Arabs in the West Bank are in

contravention of Article 2. Paragraph 2, which stipulates that "no distinction

shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of

the country or territory to whioh a person belongs, whether it be independent,

trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Finally, our delegation cannot but feel concern with respect to the right to a

nationality, cited in Article 15 of the Declaration. In effect, the very state of an

occupied territory results in the denial of a nationality to its inhabitant.

o