Question of Palestine home
Economic and Social Council
11 February 1970
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Item 5 of the provisional agenda
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL WORKING GROUP OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED UNDER
RESOLUTION 6 (XXV) OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (
Chapter II. Analysis of some relevant proclamations and orders of the Israel Defence Forces in the territories occupied by Israel as a result of hostilities in the Middle East
Chapter III. Analysis of evidence received by the Special Working Group
ANALYSIS OF SOME RELEVANT PROCLAMATIONS AND ORDERS
OF THE ISRAEL DEFENCE FORCES IN THE TERRITORIES
OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL AS A RESULT OF HOSTILITIES IN
THE MIDDLE EAST
1. This analysis is based on the texts available to the Special Working Group. In spite of the efforts of the Group and of the Secretariat to secure a complete collection, the texts available are not complete but they provide a sufficient basis for a pertinent analysis.
2. Immediately upon occupation, government in the areas concerned was vested in the Israeli Military Command. The Israeli authorities have, with the exception of occupied Jerusalem, divided the areas under occupation into four regions for the purpose of administration. These regions are (a) the West Bank of the Jordan (referred to by Israeli Military Government as “Judea and Samaria”), (b) the Gaza Strip and northern Sinai, (c) the Golan Heights and (d) southern Sinai. Each of these regions is under the control of a military governor.
3. The government of these regions is carried out by means of proclamations and orders which are in principle allegedly published in Hebrew and Arabic and the publication of which is a prior condition to their coming into force. It also appears that each proclamation and order is subsequently published in the official gazette of the Israel Defence Force Command of the region, which is entitled
Compilation of Proclamation and Orders
4. In order better to understand the importance and the effectiveness of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) in the occupied territories, it is necessary to analyze some relevant proclamations and orders of the Israel Defence Forces in the occupied territories. There exists a close relation between the Convention and the said proclamations and orders, For instance, article 64 of the Convention recognizes that the penal law of the occupied territories shall remain in force, and article 117 of the Convention recognizes that the laws in force in the territory will continue to apply to internees who commit offences during internment; article 54 of the Convention guarantees,
, the existence of judicial institutions of the occupied areas during the period of occupation.
5. Proclamation No. 2 of the Israel Defence Force for the Golan Heights concerning law and administration states in section 2 that the law in force in the region on 10 June 1967 will remain in force, in so far as it does not conflict with “this proclamation or any other proclamation or order issued by the Israel Defence Force and with the modifications resulting from the establishment of government by the Israel Defence Force in the region”. Similar proclamations concerning the West Bank region and the Gaza Strip contain the same provisions.
6. Section 2 of Proclamation No. 2 thus recognizes the spirit of article 64 of the Convention and of article 117 of the Convention in principle, but the same section 2 of the Proclamation makes reference to abrogations and modifications resulting from the establishment of military government by the occupying Power.
7. There appears to be no question that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and with the proclamations promulgated in the occupied areas immediately after occupation, the national penal law in the various areas under occupation is that which was in force prior to occupation.
8. The Special Working Group considers that arguments which imply that “occupied territories” are not “occupied” in the sense of article 64 of the Convention are to be regarded as private opinions and have no bearing on the judicial situation as it exists in the occupied areas of the Middle East and, indeed, as affirmed in the relevant proclamations concerning those areas.
The system of the Israel Defence Forces regulations
9. The proclamations and orders of the Israel Defence Force in the occupied territories reflect two systems of law of the occupying Power:
(a) the Jerusalem area under occupation, where Israeli law has for all intents and purposes replaced the existing legal system of the region;
(b) the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai-Gaza regions, where Israeli law has replaced important elements of the legal system of the region, in particular in so far as the maintenance of regular government, security and public order is concerned.
The Jerusalem area under occupation
10. That the Jerusalem area is an area under occupation in the sense of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been affirmed in several resolutions adopted by United Nations organs, in particular, Security Council resolution 237 (1967).
11. In virtue of an amendment to the Law and Administration Ordinance 5708 (1948), the Israeli authorities declared an area of Jerusalem as one in which the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State apply. The law in force up to the occupation was therefore completely substituted by the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel.
12. The report of the Secretary-General under General Assembly resolution 2254 (ES-V) relating to Jerusalem (S/8146) contains the necessary information for understanding the factual situation regarding this part of the occupied territories.
13. The occupied area of Jerusalem is governed by Law and Administration Order No. 1 (1967) and the orders subsequent to it. These orders, including the Land Order (Expropriation for Public Purposes) 1943, of 8 January 1968 (
) No. 1425) and the Law of Dispossession (Dispossession for Public Purposes) 1943, of 14 April 1968 (
No. 1443), are connected with article 53 of the Geneva Convention. According to the commentary on the Convention
article 53 permits requisition of private property “only under certain circumstances”. The Land Order in question does not mention any “certain circumstances” - it simply refers to “public purposes”. In the opinion of the Special Working Group this reference to “public purposes” is not sufficient to render this expropriation immune to the prohibition implied in article 53. The Land Order mentioned above announced that the land described in a schedule to it is absolutely required by the Minister of Finance for public purposes. The order provides for compensation.
14. Since the landowners protected against the expropriation order on general grounds and did not claim compensation, the expropriation took place by virtue of the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the order, which states” “The Minister of Finance hereby orders any person in possession of the said land to deliver possession thereof forthwith”. The deprivation of property has thus become a confiscation, forbidden by classic international law.
15. Since it appears that in virtue of the Law and Administration Order No. 1 (1967) the area occupied Jerusalem is governed by Israeli law, which has abrogated the former law of the territory, the Special Working Group is of the opinion that this Israeli law should be considered, in the light of the Geneva Convention, as the law by which the occupying Power governs the occupied part of Jerusalem. In this respect, the Group considers that there is no difference between the Israeli laws applying to Jerusalem and the proclamations and orders applying in the other occupied territories.
TheGolan Heights the West Bank and Sinai
16. The Israel Defence Forces govern the occupied area, with the exception of the Jerusalem area under occupation, by means of proclamations and orders. In conducting its analysis of the law of the occupying Power, the Special Working Group limits itself to analyzing on the legal system in the occupied areas, with the exception of occupied Jerusalem, which is dealt with under subsection 1 above.
17. A comparison of the Israeli regulations with the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, as amended until 2 March 1947,
enacted during the period of the British Palestine Mandate shows that the latter has been replaced by Israeli proclamations and orders as they concern the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
18. Since the system of the Israel Defence Force regulations concerning the different occupied territories - other than the region of Jerusalem - appears to be approximately the same in each region, for the purposes of this report it is sufficient to analyze only one group of regulations more carefully, that is, the system in the Golan Heights; this does not restrict the Special Working Group from considering, if necessary, the legal situation in other parts of the occupied territories.
19. There appear to be three main proclamations for each region. Proclamation No. 1 concerning the assumption of government by the Israel Defence Forces (10 June 1967), Proclamation No. 2 concerning law and administration (18 June 1967), Proclamation No. 3 relating to the entry into force of the Order concerning security instructions (18 June 1867).
20. The proclamations are carried out by a series of orders. The main orders for the Golan Heights appear to be the following:
(a) Order concerning security instructions (18 June 1967) as amended;
(b) Order No. 2 concerning prohibition of looting (18 June 1967);
(c) Order No. 5 concerning establishment of military court (21 June 1967);
(d) Order No. 8 concerning jurisdiction in criminal offences (30 June 1967);
(e) Order No. 1 concerning closed areas (19 June 1967);
(f) Order No. 12 concerning establishment of advisory committees (4 July 1967);
(g) Order No. 13 concerning land transactions (11 July 1967);
(h) Order No. 20 concerning abandoned property (20 July 1967).
21. Amongst the orders of the Israel Defence Forces promulgated for the West Bank region the following are of particular interest:
(a) Order No. 58 concerning abandoned (private) property (15 November 1967);
(b) Order No. 143 concerning defence in military court (8 October 1967);
(c) Order No. 157 concerning prolongation of detention warrant (1 November 1967);
(d) Order No. 163 concerning reporting of wounded persons (5 November 1967);
(e) Order No. 164 concerning local courts (3 November 1967).
22. Amongst the orders of the Israel Defence Forces promulgated for the Gaza Strip region the following are also of particular interest:
(a) Order No. 257 concerning extension of detention ordinance (8 January 1969);
(b) Order No. 263 concerning prosecutions (16 February 1969);
(c) Order No. 266 concerning identification of goods (18 February 1969);
(d) Instruction concerning designation of places of detention and imprisonment (5 February 1968).
23. The Special Working Group notes that the Order concerning security instructions for the West Bank region, which is presumably similar to the Order for the Golan Heights, has been amended several times. Among these modifications there is - at least valid in the West Bank - the abrogation of article 35, which recognized the Convention as an auxiliary source of law (Amendment No. 9, Order No. 144).
Proclamations Nos. 1-3 (Golan Heights)
24. Proclamation No. 1 concerns the situation immediately after the occupation of the area and governs the curfew and its consequences; Proclamation No. 2 concerns the assumption of authority: all governmental, legislative, appointive and administrative authority is vested in the military commander of the Israel Defence Forces in the region. The conclusion can be drawn that the commander of the region is primarily the responsible organ of the Israel Defence Forces in the respective regions.
25. Proclamation No. 2 may be considered by the Israeli authorities as a legal basis for the repeal or suspension of penal law of the occupied territories as recognized by article 64 of the Convention.
26. Proclamation No. 2 further contains provisions concerning Syrian State property: all movable and immovable property of this kind is handed over to the military commander of the region and is under his control.
27. Proclamation No. 3 contains the Security Instructions, which concern the same subject-matter as the Convention. These instructions are analyzed in section D below.
The Security Instructions
28. The Security Instructions - amended several times - which are similar to the Defence Emergency Regulations (1945) of the Government of Palestine, contain five parts as follows:
(a) General provisions (sections 1-4);
(b) Provisions about courts and jurisdictions (sections 5-43);
(c) Offences (sections 44-59);
(d) Provisions concerning detention, search, seizure and confiscations (sections 60-64);
(e) Provisions concerning restriction order, surveillance, order and administrative detention (sections 65-70) and miscellaneous provisions.
29. The provisions of the above-mentioned Security Instructions are in particular related to articles 64 to 75 of the Convention, which concern common penal law offences. Article 5 of the Convention permits derogations for security reasons. The Security Instructions could therefore be considered as derogations validly based on the Convention.
30. The Security Instructions do not contain any provision concerning the matters dealt with in other chapters or articles of the Convention. It follows, therefore, at least as concerns the Golan Heights - that, in respect of those matters, the Convention has not been derogated from the Israeli law. On the contrary, section 35 of the Security Instructions contains a reference to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is made source of law, since it states that in case of conflict between the Security Instructions and the Convention, “the provisions of the Convention shall prevail”. But Order No. 144 containing Amendment No. 9 (22 October 1967), referring to the Security Instructions of the West Bank, has replaced the reference to the Convention by a provision about the period of detention. The legal material available does not allow a firm conclusion that this amendment has also been made in respect of the Security Instructions of the other occupied territories.
31. Order No. 2 concerning prohibition of looting, which corresponds to article 33 of the Convention, reads as follows: “Any person who loots, or breaks into a house, or other place, for the purpose of looting, or who knowingly aids and abets looting, shall be liable to a penalty of imprisonment for life”.
Courts and jurisdiction
32. Section 5
. Of the Security Instructions established a separate penal law for offences defined in the Security Instructions and the subsequent orders. Military courts are established which are to follow a particular procedure as regards evidence, witnesses, preparation pf records, summoning of witnesses, arrest for failure to appear. The instructions also contain provisions concerning the finality of decisions and the presentation of the defence.
33. The conviction and sentence of a person by a military court shall be valid only in so far as they are confirmed by the regional commander (section 38); he also has the power to review the sentence.
34. Concerning the procedure to be followed by the military courts reference is made to section 35 of the regulations and to paragraph 29 of this report.
35. Section 44
. Enumerate a list of offences: use of firearms, explosives, carrying of firearms, explosive substances, offences against maintenance of public order, disguising, giving refuge, false witness, aiding and abetting, attempt to commit offences, interference in Israel Defence Force affairs, information of military significance, hindrance of soldiers in the performance of their duties, possession of military equipment, threats, failure to give information, giving of false information.
Detention, search, seizure and confiscation
36. Section 60
. Contain provisions about arrest and detention, seizure and confiscation. This refers to offences created in the Security Instructions on the basis of considerations of security. They would not refer to offences under the common penal law.
37. The confiscation clause is wide: goods, articles, documents or objects with respect to which an offence against the security regulations has been committed shall be confiscated in favour of the Israel Defence Force. The release of such goods can be ordered.
38. Section 62 permits the search of any place and person.
39. Section 66
. give the basis for making further restrictions in individual cases and for putting a person under special surveillance.
40. Section 67 authorizes the putting of persons under administrative detention. An advisory committee is in this case competent to make a judgement on detention of this kind “at least once in six months whether or not the detained persons appeals to it”.
41. Section 68 contains provisions prohibiting the use of roads, concerning the control of vehicles and of the movement of persons, and declaring an area a closed area.
Israeli legislation in the occupied territories in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention
Physical safeguard of the civilian population
42. Article 33 of the Convention establishes individual responsibility. It states: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed...”. Section 72 of the Security Instructions, however, makes a person responsible if he is a leader of a convicted organization, regardless of his individual responsibility. It states: “If an organization is convicted of an offence against this order, any person who at the time of the offence was a leader or official of the organization shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he has proved that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he took all reasonable steps to prevent its commission.”
43. The order concerning prohibition of looting (Order No. 2, Golan Heights) relates to article 33, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
44. Article 68 of the Convention does not prohibit death sentences absolutely. By Order No. 268 (West Bank), No. 328 (Gaza and northern Sinai) and No. 146 (Golan Heights), the death penalty is abolished.
Penal legislation and procedure (articles 64 to 75 of the Convention
45. The various security orders do not concern the common penal law. They may be considered, in a sense, martial law, within the Convention (see article 5 of the Convention); nevertheless, section 35 of the Security Instructions makes reference to the Geneva Convention.
46. The different orders and regulations of the Israel Defence Forces which create offences and provide for their adjudication and punishment introduce in fact a new penal system. This, however, may be interpreted as consistent with article 64, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them”.
47. Article 64, of the Convention also states that the tribunals of the occupied territories shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the penal law of the territory. In contradiction to this provision and not covered by the derogation appearing in article 64 paragraph 2, of the Convention is Order No. 8 concerning jurisdiction in criminal offences (repeated in similar orders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Under this order military courts shall be competent to judge any offence against a law of the region which was in force immediately prior to the entry of the Israel Defence Forces into the region. The Group has no proof which would enable it ti state that the military courts have taken a political attitude.
48. In so far as the military courts replace the ordinary courts in penal matters, a separate legal aid and defence system is established. This, as such, is not contrary to the Convention. (For the West Bank, see Order No. 143 in relation to article 72 of the Convention; for the Gaza Strip see Order No. 262.)
Respect for the property of civilians (articles 3 and 53 of the Convention
49. Reference is made once more to the order concerning the prohibition of looting.
50. In the context of the provision of the Convention which prohibits the destruction of property, one may mention the orders concerning abandoned (private) property, which establish a system with the aim of restoring eventually the abandoned property to the original owner in law, or possessor in fact.
51. On the other hand, the Security Instructions provide for the confiscation of goods, articles etc., in favour of the Israel Defence Forces in case of suspicion of offence against the order (under Proclamation No. 3, sections 61 and 69 of the Security Instructions).
52. The expropriation system in the Jerusalem area introduced by an order of 8 January 1968, in accordance with section 5 and 7 of the Land Order (Expropriation for Public Purpose) 1943, is described in paragraphs 10-15 above.
Guarantees of the institutions and government of occupied territories (articles 47 and 54 of the Convention
53. A wide interpretation of the spirit of article 54 which, according to the commentary on the Convention
refers not only to judges and public officials but to “the whole administrative and judicial machinery”, may lead to the conclusion that article 54 guarantees all the institutions and government of occupied territories. The Israeli authorities, pursuant to Proclamation No. 2 and other orders, replaced the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts by that of military courts. The Israeli authorities, pursuant to Proclamation No. 2 and other orders, replaced the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts by that of military courts. The Israeli authorities also enacted the Law and Administration Order No. 1 (1967) concerning the area of Eretz-Israel (concerning Jerusalem) whereby the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel apply. The Israeli authorities have taken measures pursuant to that order. The Special Working Group concludes that article 47 is violated if the changes in the institutions or government introduced by the occupying Power in fact and in law lead to a deprivation of the benefits which the Convention affords to protected persons.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE SPECIAL WORKING GROUP
54. The evidence before the Special Working Group consisted of the following:
(a) Personal testimony of individuals alleging violations of the Convention;
(b) Oral statements concerning alleged violations of the Convention;
(c) United Nations documents containing information relevant to the mandate of the Special Working Group;
(d) Written communications received by the Group alleging violations of the Convention;
(e) Communications relating to the situation in the Middle East in general;
(f) Reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which have a bearing on the mandate of the Special Working Group.
55. The Special Working Group heard witnesses who testified as to their personal experience concerning alleged violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The list of names of persons appearing before the Special Working Group appears as an annex to this report.
56. The Special Working Group also heard statements and received communications relating to alleged violations. In particular, it heard a statement by Dr. Burhan Hammad, representing the League of Arab. States, dealing with the question of applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and setting out the various types of violations allegedly committed by Israel in the territories occupied by it as a result of the hostilities of June 1967. It also heard the testimony of George Dib (RT.5),
who presented to the Group a detailed memorandum on the treatment of Arab civilians in the occupied territories on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies, Beirut. The memorandum contains data collected by research teams of the Institute, relating to allegations of wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, destruction of houses and other property, expropriation of property and pillage, and eviction of Arabs and settlement of Jews. Mr. Dib informed the Group that this information had been corroborated:
(a)By interviewing the persons directly concerned and finding corroboration of the same fact by a number of persons separately interviewed;
(b) By looking for and inspecting traces of alleged maltreatment on the bodies of persons who testify to having been maltreated;
(c) By verifying the accuracy of the evidence by reference to other sources, such as newspaper reports and parliamentary reports.
57. At its twenty-eighth meeting in Cairo, the Group heard a statement by Professor Izzedin Foda of the University of Cairo (RT.20). In his statement and an accompanying memorandum, Professor Foda submitted instances of alleged Israeli breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention with regard to: (a) expulsion of individuals, (b)destruction of homes, (c) illegal detention, torture and illegal trial, (d) murder and terrorism, (e) hospitals and health services, (f) changes in school schedules, closing of schools and profanation of holy places, and (g) undermining the economy of the occupied territories and looting. Professor Foda based the proof of his allegations on excerpts from reports of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, information gathered by the international Committee of the Red Cross, reports in Israeli and world press, and information collected by the Government of the United Arab Republic as a State involved in the question and harbouring refugees from the occupied territories, in particular from the Gaza Strip and from Sinai. At its twenty-first meeting held in Amman, Amman, Jordan, the Working Group heard the statement by Major Derek Cooper concerning the treatment of individuals and the question of the status of the occupied territories under the Israeli occupation régime (RT.13). In this context, Major Cooper stated:
“I should like to stress that there is no doubt whatever in my mind that there has always been a carefully organized pressure by the Israelis to oblige the indigenous population of Palestine to leave the country by every means at their disposal, which has included intimidation, endless house-to-house searchers, day and night, under any pretext whatever, the billeting of troops, monetary and psychological pressures, lack of jobs, bribes, bad treatment, and the blowing up of property. In other words, if you do not co-operate, you can leave. That was virtually admitted to me in a conversation with Mr. Michael Comay in Jerusalem ...”
58. A number of allegations concerning ill-treatment of civilians and destruction and looting of civilian property were made in letters from the representative of Syrian on 15 June 1967 (S/7991), 6 July 1967 (S/8037) and 19 July 1967 (S/8077). These letters were referred to by the representative of Israel in letters dated 23 June 1967 (S/8012), 4 July 1967 (S/8030), 7 July 1967 (S/8042) and 2 August 1967 (S/8105). These were denied by the representative of Israel.
59. In a letter dated 17 July 1967 (S/8064), the representative of the United Arab Republic communicated the text of a note sent by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic to the International Committee of the Red Cross dated 7 July 1967. This note contains a list of examples of acts in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular, articles 3, 16, 18, 49, 53, 54, 55, 89, 91, 92, 106 and 108. The representative of Israel, by letter dated 19 July 1967 (S/8082), categorically denied these allegations and made references to measures taken by Israel to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population.
60. The Special Working Group also took into account the information contained in United Nations documents; the attention of the Special Working Group to these documents was drawn by the League of Arab States by letter dated 19 June 1969. Where the information contained in these documents relates to the same subject matter as that of oral testimonies these documents are referred to in the analysis of the evidence which follows.
61. The Special Working Group also received a number of written communications concerning alleged violations of the Convention. A number of these communications were received by the Working Group during its field trip in the Middle East; shortage of time unfortunately prevented the Working Group from hearing the individuals in person. The other communications were addressed to the Working Group by cable or mail. These are listed in the annexes to this report.
62. The Special Working Group also received a number of communications concerning the situation in the Middle East in general. The list of these communications is reproduced in the annexes.
63. The following is the order adopted in analyzing the allegations received by the Working Group:
(a) Allegations regarding the physical safeguard of the civilian population, including children and treatment of detainees. These allegations concern articles 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 49, 50, 55, 56 and 76 of the Convention;
(b) Allegations regarding violation of articles 64-75 relating to penal legislation and penal procedure;
(c) Allegations regarding respect for property of protected persons, covered by articles 33 and 53;
(d) Allegations regarding the eviction and deportation of protected persons and the prohibition of transfer of population of the occupying Power to the occupied territories (article 49);
(e) Allegations regarding the non-observance of article 54, which sets forth the guarantees of the institutions and government of occupied territories;
(f) Allegations regarding the non-observance of article 54, which sets forth the guarantees of the institutions and government of occupied territories;
(f) Allegations regarding the non-observance of article 30 concerning the implementation of the Convention.
Allegations regarding the physical safeguard of the civilian population including children and treatment of detainees
Killing, torture and ill-treatment of individuals other than detainees
Murder of individuals
64. Mr. Abu Mohammed Kubsi (RT.8) stated that on 11 June 1967, Israeli troops had invaded his house, stood his son and a friend of his up against the garden wall and shot them both. The son was killed and his friend was wounded. The following day, the Israeli troops again visited the house. They placed the wounded man on the same bed as a second son of the witness who was bedridden with tuberculosis and shot both dead in the bed (pages 36-40).
65. According to Mr. Mohammed Abdil Meguid (RT.9) on 15 June 1967, Israeli troops occupying the village of Ein Zewair, near Quneitra, had shot an old woman and they had thrown her body into a well. The witness also stated that on 18 June 1967, the Israelis had shot and wounded the village muktar (page 81).
66. Mr. Tayyim El-Ghuzzi (RT.9) stated that Israeli troops shot and killed one man and one woman during their forced eviction from their village of Bteiha on or just before 12 June 1967 (pages 91-95).
67. Dr. Mohammed El-Bek (Rt.21) testified that when the Israeli troops entered the El-Arish area, he and his wife were made to stand against the wall with their hands in the air, together with some other civilians. Some of these were then shot down in his presence and the Israelis refused to allow the victims to be taken to hospital. He and his wife, who was near to giving birth, were left without food and water for two days. The witness also stated that he had seen Israeli troops bring two Arab. students before his house, kill one and shoot the other in the head. He also stated that doctors had also been beaten up and terrorized.
68. Mr. Gutyam Nasser Selmi (RT.20) stated that his brother was shot and killed by the Israeli troops in his house before the witness; this took place twenty-three days after the first Israeli attack in Bir el-Abd.
69. Mrs. Maha El-Zirbawi (RT.20) testified that Israeli troops in El-Arish had driven her and her family from their apartment and had shot and killed her father and her two brothers. The Red Cross had eventually arranged for her and her brother to reach Cairo.
70. According to Kamel El-Harouni (RT.20), his brother was shot in the leg and soon after shot and killed by Israeli troops who were searching for the witness on 28 September 1967. In an earlier attempt to contact him, Israeli troops arrested the witness’s wife and mother-in-law and informed them that they (the Israelis) would kill the witness’s children if he did not show up at Israeli headquarters on the following day.
71. Mr. Yehia Abou Shahla (RT.18) said that two persons, Kadi el Kadi and Sawky el Farra, had been killed by Israeli troops without legal proceedings in the first half of July 1967. The witness further testified that one of his neighbours, Mr. Khadry el Dayer, Secretary of the Palestine School, had been murdered by the Israelis in his bedroom together with his son for no reason at all. The witness drew the attention of the Special Working Group to the execution a few months earlier of Dr. Heidar Abu Shafi, head of the Islamic Tribunal in Gaza and a Gaza lawyer Mr. Fayzy el Husaini. The witness could not see any reason for thes eexecutions except that the two executed persons had submitted a protest to the Military Governor about the looting by Israeli troops and the taxes levied on the population. The witness further testified that he had seen dead bodies lying in the streets one week after the occupation. The Israelis had refused to give up the bodies to relatives; they had loaded them into lorries and thrown them into ditches.
72. Miss Aisha Vati Ghazy (RT.18), eighteen years old, testified that two weeks after the commencement of the June 1967 war, the Israelis shot down her father before her eyes as they entered the house. She tried to prevent them and cried bitterly, but the Israeli soldiers fired at her and wounded her severely in the arm and knee. Her uncle and cousin had also been badly beaten. She herself had remained in the house one week in order to care for her wounded uncle. Pepele working in the street had eventually entered and found that there were dead persons within and had taken her to the hospital. It had been necessary to amputate her right arm, and she had received an artificial arm which she showed to the Group. Four or five months after the war, the Israelis had beaten the aunt of the witness and shot down her cousin.
73. Mrs. Fatma Mahmoud Abdallah (RT.18) stated that when the Israeli troops entered her village, they broke down the door of her house and fired at her husband and children. Her husband had been killed, and one of her five children had been injured in the head.
74. Mr. Salmud Mahmoud El Yemen (RT.18) testified that one man he knew, Sid Ahmed Soliman Atallah, had been killed by the Israelis because he had defended his wife and children in Bir el-Abd.
75. Miss Camilia Kamal Soliman El Zirbawi (RT.17) testified that her uncle and two cousins had been killed and her father wounded in the same episode as that when she was shot in the head.
76. Mr. Salem Gowaa Ghorab (RT.17), chief of the Dawaghere tribe of the Bir el-Abd region of Mousfig, testified that one or two months after the occupation of the village, a boat with six persons on board which had been bringing drinking water from the Bardaweel Lake to his village had been destroyed by the Israelis and the occupants killed. Two fishermen on the Bardaweel Lake had also been killed by machine-gun fire from helicopters.
77. Mrs. Narges El Sayed Ibrahim (RT.17) stated that she had been asleep in a room with her husband and children when the Israelis had broken down the doors and burst into their house. They had made her children and herself lie on the floor, while they slit her husband’s throat with a bayonet. The blood stains could still be seen on the stone floor. The Israelis had threatened to cut the throat of the seven-year old son of the witness if she refused to do what they said. The boy had been very roughly treated by the Israelis and his arm was still badly dislocated and deformed.
78. Mohammed El Attar (RT.19) testified that one night he was escorting a pregnant woman for medical treatment. He was a policeman. They were accosted by an Israeli patrol who shot and killed the eight-month pregnant woman.
79. Other instances of murder were alleged in communications to the Secretary-General. In a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan on 8 August 1967 (S/8115), it was stated:
“On the morning of 26 July 1967, the Israel armed forces arrested eight Jordanian citizens near Auja village. After being searched and their possessions confiscated, they were forcibly taken to the Hayek Bridge on the Jordan River, where they were brutally beaten with rifle butts and machine-guns.
“According to Ali Hassan Ali Suleiman, an eye-witness and the only survivor, the victims were told to swim to the east bank. They were later thrown in the river and seven of them were shot in cold blood.
“Ali Hassan Ali Suleiman, who escaped death by dividing under the water and hiding behind a bush, is now undergoing medical treatment at Salt Hospital.”
This letter was answered by the Permanent Representative of Israel in a letter of 16 August 1967 (S/8123) which contains the following statement:
“Towards the end of July, several instances occurred of armed infiltrators attempting to cross into Israel-controlled territory. After they had opened fire, they were driven back. No unnecessary force was employed on any of these occasions.”
Torture and ill-treatment of individuals, other than detainees
80. Mr. Mohammed Kader Derbas (RT.19) testified that he had been castrated in Gaza. The operation took place when the witness was hospitalized for treatment. The witness was examined by a physician duly appointed by the Working Group, who reported that Derbas had been castrated and that otherwise he was in good health (see report of Dr. Choukri in RT.20). The Working Group also took note of a report by two doctors presented by Professor Foda in an annex to his written memorandum (RT.20).
81. The witness also stated that several other men had been castrated who were unwilling to testify before the Working Group.
82. Miss Camilia Kamal Soliman El Zirbawi (RT.17), fifteen years old, testified before the Group that on 7 June 1867, she had been shot in the head by an Israeli soldier. The episode had occurred in one of the bedrooms of her home in El-Arish. The Israeli soldiers who had fired the shots had been at the door of the room. They had fired at random into the room. The witness had been hit in the right temple, and was still slightly paralysed on her left side. The shooting had occurred when her house at El-Arish had been surrounded by tanks and a number of Israeli soldiers had rushed in. They had struck the children with rifle butts and her younger brother had been knocked unconscious. When her mother had attempted to stop them she had been through to the ground. The witness had rushed to help her mother and had been shot in the head. The witness stated that there were no members of the resistance in the house, nor had any of her relatives participated in the resistance.
83. Mrs. Dawlat El Sayed Allam (RT.18) testified that the Israelis had come to her house during lunch. Her sixty-five-year-old husband, and her eight children had been present. They had been lined up and asked for their identity cards. Her husband had said he was a Sheikh and knew nothing about any soldiers. The Israelis had then beaten him savagely. She had been tied up and the Israeli soldiers had attempted to rape her. Her fifteen-year old son had seized a knife and attacked the soldiers, who had killed him. They had then raped her. The witness had been raped a second time by Israeli soldiers when she had tried to get to Egypt. The witness stated that she had not been the only woman treated in that way in the village, and some who had resisted rape had been killed.
84. Sheikh El-Hersh (RT.19) stated that as he and his family were moving towards Egypt after being forced from their home (Bir el-Abd), one of his daughters had died of thirst since they had no food or water.
85. Mr. Nasser Salem Salama (RT.19) testified that when the Israelis asked the villagers of Bir el-Abd who their chief was and when he had come forward, they tied him up, robbed him of everything and struck him with a rifle butt in the left cheek. His house was burned down.
86. Witness E. (RT.19) also stated that she had been sexually molested by the Governor of Nablus Prison when she went to him to obtain permission to visit her husband. The same witness also stated that, according to her information, four other girls had been taken into a nearby room by Israeli officers who raped them.
Ill-treatment of civilians in groups, including mass killing
87. Mr. Emil Anton El-Ghouri (RT.6) testified that there was indiscriminate and mass shooting of civilians by Israeli troops in Jerusalem streets after the cease-fire (pages 29-30). He submitted a list of the names of 180 persons who had been killed in this manner. In his testimony, Archbishop Diodoros (RT.12) speaks of the presence of several corpses in the streets of Jerusalem during the period immediately after the cease-fire (page 26).
88. Mr. Mahmoud Saleb Sejf (RT.6) stated that in Jericho, immediately after the Israeli troops had moved in, any person who attempted to flee the city was shot and that he himself had seen thirty-four corpses(page 61).
89. Witness (RT.13) refers to the fact that in one village nine youngsters had been shot to death in front of their families (page 26-30).
90. Mr. Salen Nazani (RT.15) from the Noseirat tribe and the village bearing the same name, stated that four men had been summoned by the Israeli army and summarily shot as they approached the place to which they had been summoned. This took place on 29 November 1967. The following day, the whole population of the village was ordered out (page 26).
91. Sheikh Abu Rashed (RT.16) testified that the Muktar (Al Rawachdi tribe) and his family, Abu seheiban, were murdered by the Israelis and buried in a mass grave; they were refugees who lived in the Rafah camp in Gaza.
92. Abdel Rahman Nasr (RT.16) an eleven-year old boy, stated that he had seen several adults being herded by the Israelis to rubbish heaps outside the refugee camp (Rafah), shot down and their bodies covered over with the use of bulldozers.
93. Sheikh Salem Ally el Harsh (RT.17), chief of the tribe in the Rabat District from region Bar el-Add, testified that when the Israelis had entered the village, they had forced the villagers to lie on the ground, had begun to shoot at them and had killed two men of the tribe named Solomon Ally Nastier and Nastier Ada Nastier.
94. According to Mr. Cesium Daoud (RT.8), seven young men of those who had been taken as hostages were summarily shot dead by the Israelis on 15 June 1967. The witness further stated that when the village population was marched out, they were covered by machine-guns mounted on jeeps; the Israelis shot at anyone who strayed or who looked back (pages 71, 81-85).
95. Mrs. Nimet Mahmoud Saleh (RT.9) stated that three days after the Israelis occupied her village (Tel Awra), they had forcibly evicted the villagers and after five days of walking, through the demilitarized zone to the combat lines, the Israelis had picked sixteen young men and had shot them in cold blood. Her husband was among these (page 46).
96. Mr. Hussein Khaled Naajel (RT.9) who testified in Damascus, stated that three days after occupation, Israeli troops had evicted the village population and in doing so they had picked sixteen young men and shot them. He stated that his wife had tried to prevent the murder of her four sons and she too had been shot dead (page 61).
97. Mr. Tayyim El-Ghuzzi (RT.9) stated that on 13 June 1967, as the villagers of Bteiha were being marched to the cease-fire line by the Israelis, they had singled out six men and shot them in cold blood (pages 91-95).
98. Mr. Mohammed El-Attar (RT.19) said that in early July 1967, in the Gaza Strip, Israeli troops had picked three men from a number that they had assembled and had shot them dead. One was a teacher, one was a shoe-shine boy and one was a labourer. As the Israelis dispersed the men they shot over their heads, killing another two.
99. Mr. Souhair Moussa Ibrahim (Rt.19) stated that twenty-five days after the Israeli attack, Israeli soldiers had suddenly surrounded his tribe and killed thirty-seven civilians.
100. Mr. Ibrahim Abu Seheiban (RT.14) witnessed the killing of a number of persons in Awadhira Camp on 11 June 1967. He stated that thirteen corpses had been counted in the ruins of a secondary school that had been demolished, including that of his father and his two brothers, who had previously been taken away from his home by Israeli soldiers (pages 71-75).
101. In a letter dated 8 April 1969 (S/9141), the representative of Syria states that Israeli soldiers captured six Syrian shepherds in Brika and murdered them in cold blood.
Mass torture and ill-treatment
102. Mohammed Cesium Daoud (TR.8) stated that several persons were taken to the house of a wealthy farmer and they were put in several rooms facing the wall with their hands raised above their heads. They were kept like this for three days. They were then taken out and told to dig trenches; they were made to stand in these trenches each day for three days. On the fourth day they were made to stand in these trenches each day for three days. On the fourth day they were made to stand holding heavy stones above their heads. They were then told to leave the village or be shot and buried in the trenches that they had dug (pages 62-71).
103. Rev. Elia Khouri (RT.12) stated that in Ramallah, over a period of time up to March 1969, he witnessed Israeli soldiers mercilessly beating up men, women and children at random outside their homes (pages 32-35).
104. According to Miss Camilia Kamal Solomon El Zebawi (RT.17) fifteen years old, in El-Arish, the Israeli troops entered the houses in the middle of the night and treated the women and children very brutally. It was also their habit to go round the streets carrying empty beer bottles and, when they met civilians, to break them over their heads. One of her brothers, aged eighteen, had suffered a broken leg from Israeli beatings. Subsequent to this, he had been arrested and held in prison for two months.
105. Sheikh Solomon Moussa Ibrahim (RT.17), who is chief of the El Rawayeh tribe from Beir el Abed in the Bteiha Zone in the Sinai region, testified that the Israelis had passed through his village at the commencement of hostilities. Two weeks later they had returned and forced the inhabitants to leave their houses. On this occasion, some members of his tribe had been killed by machine-gun fire.
106. In a letter to the Secretary-General dated 19 August 1969, the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/8750) stated that certain acts of lawlessness had taken place in Jerusalem against Arab inhabitants. The letter further states:
“Yesterday, 18 August, hundreds of Israeli youths poured into Arab Jerusalem and attacked Arab residents, stoned Arab taxis and buses, smashed windows, thus injuring scores of innocent civilians, some of whom were seriously wounded. The mobs roamed through the streets for over an hour bringing havoc and fear. Again, as in the June war, looting took place and Arab stores were attacked and property destroyed. The Israeli police, whose headquarters are very close to the scene, apparently was not instructed to intervene until the Israelis mobs had completed their job.”
107. This letter is referred to in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel of 21 August 1968 (S/8756) which states:
“The letter purports to give an account of an incident that occurred in Jerusalem on 18 August. It deliberately omits, however, the essential facts. It does not mention that the incident began with three premeditated and planned terror attacks carried out by terror organizations operating from Jordan. It fails to mention that ten persons were injured, two of them seriously, by explosions of timing devices placed at the Bikur Holim Hospital, the central bus station and a gasoline station. The letter omits also the fact that the Jerusalem authorities condemned the outburst of a number of Jewish youths incensed by these terror attacks against innocent civilians; that a number of the young men implicated were arrested and immediate steps taken to end the turbulence and prevent its recurrence; and that Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence defined it as hooliganism which plays into the hands of the El-Fatah.
“On the other hand, the Jordanian Government has failed to dissociate itself from acts of violence and murder directed against civilians. On the contrary, it supports them and even actively participates in them. Indeed, the Jordanian Government has repeatedly avowed its adherence to terror warfare, which constitutes a grave violation of the cease-fire. This warfare is pursued from Jordanian territory by inhuman and cowardly attempts at random killing and maiming of innocent civilians, Jews and Arabs, men, women and children, without the pretence of any military objective. Among the methods frequently employed in these attacks are the placing of explosives in theatres, bus stations and crowded streets, the dispersing of button-shaped mines in school yards, the throwing of grenades into stores and the sabotage or agricultural installations and vehicles.
“The citizens of Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs alike, have repudiated the incident of 18 August, and the city continues on its course of normal life and development marked by coexistence of the two peoples which are weary of conflict and shrink from the warfare of terror, murder and hate inspired by the Arab Governments.”
108. References to ill-treatment of groups is also made in a number of letters from the Governments of the interested States. In a letter dated 15 June 1967 (S/7988), the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic stated:
“Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honour to bring to your attention the following:
“(1) The Israeli authorities, after their occupation of Rafah and El Arish, launched brutal and inhuman attacks by shelling and thereby severely damaging the hospitals in both cities, which were crowded with wounded military personnel and civilians as well as of their medical staff.
“(2) The Israeli authorities have been shooting at the civilian population of the Gaza Strip and Sinai indiscriminately and for no apparent reasons.
“(3) The Israeli authorities, not satisfied with destroying the civilian installations, hit at ambulances and looted stored children’s food.
“(4) Hundreds of wounded have been left to die helplessly from thirst in the scorching heat of the dessert. The Israel authorities refused adamantly to transport them to the eastern side of the Canal. They have been left to their fate and, in order to live, they have to walk under these conditions, no less than 180 kms.
“This inhumane conduct has been practised ever since the outbreak of hostilities and is continuing notwithstanding the cease-fire call. Not only have the Israeli authorities constantly and consistently refused to extend any help to those unfortunate people but have also continuously obstructed any attempt by the International Red Cross to extend its assistance.”
109. The Permanent Representative of Israel in a letter dated 20 June 1967 (S/8003) referred to the allegations made in document S/7988 and stated:
“The allegation that the civilian population was attacked is untrue. No civilians were attacked by the Israeli forces, except when they took an active part in the armed hostilities, or gave cover to armed forces. As is known, there were irregular Arab forces operating in the area.
“Military personnel and civilians in the areas controlled by the Israeli forces, who were wounded during the hostilities, are given the same treatment in the same hospitals as Israeli casualties.
110. In his letter dated 26 September 1969 (S/9456), the representative of Jordan referred to the ill-treatment of the population of the village of Al-Khalil. This allegation referred to the closure of the central market by the military authorities, where food, clothes and other materials are transacted; reported spoiling of foods by Israeli soldiers by mixing rice with sugar and pouring petrol over flour; arresting inhabitants and leaving them naked in the sun, and cutting off Al-Khalil from the rest of the area so that no supplies, including medical materials could be carried to the city. The same letter refers to alleged similar treatment meted out by the Israelis in Beit Sahour. The allegation refers to the twenty-two-hour curfew imposed on 29 August 1969 and still in force on 26 September 1969, and the representative of the International Red Cross being forbidden to enter the town, as well as the representative of the Holy See.
111. The representative of Israel, in his letter dated 7 October 1969 (S/9466), referred to the allegations contained in document S/9456 and stated:
“After series of terror and sabotage acts in the area of Hebron and Beit Sahur, causing the death of several civilians and disrupting public order, the authorities wee compelled to take appropriate preventive and police measures to ensure the safety of the population for which they are responsible. These measures concerned in particular restrictions on traffic to Jordan and their purpose having been attained they have already been terminated.”
112. In his letter of 25 November 1969 (S/9511), the representative of Jordan also drew attention to the ill-treatment of civilians in Gaza in a newspaper report attached to his letter. The report, entitled “Eye-witness in Gaza”, had been published in the British newspaper
on 23 November 1969. The report refers,
, to the hunger prevailing in the Gaza area among civilians, and curfews imposed arbitrarily as a reprisal. The report quotes an Israeli soldier, and with regard to curfews imposed as a reprisal, it states,
“In the tougher cases, the same curfew rules applied, but only the women were kept indoors. The men were driven into the desert in trucks and sometimes beaten up on the way. When they arrived at an isolated spot, they were divided according to age into two groups. They were then forced to squat on their haunches in the sun under guard for several hours - he says for as long as eight hours at a time.
“There were also harsher measures, which the witness says were common knowledge among soldiers serving on the Strip this summer, but which he never witnessed himself. He says that during a coffee party in his tent (the Israeli army is dry), half a dozen soldiers told him the best way to combat terrorism was to bind suspects tightly with electric wire on arms and legs, and leave them in the sun.
“These were not young soldiers telling tall stories, he says, but mature reservists chatting unemotionally, without even much interest (which was the single think that made the deepest impression on him). He also says they reported beating Arab men on the shins with the butts of automatic weapons, sometimes until their legs were broken.
“How accurate are these accounts? And do the events they describe result from official policy? The first question is desperately hard to answer, but even President Nastier could not call them good witnesses. They were vague on details. They were carried away by their own rhetoric (even filtered through an interpreter) and evidently biased.
“On the other hand, an Arab professional man - he is under such pressure that I cannot even say which profession - gave a similar account. And this was also largely confirmed in the course of a series of extremely guarded conversations with international workers in the area, most of whom are concerned, above all, to avoid offending the occupying authorities.
“Moreover, they are frankly terrified that any statement of theirs will be used to prevent them from continuing all kinds of essential services.
“All of these witnesses, some of whom have spoken at first hand, and others only through hearsay, must be treated with some reserve. But the Israeli soldier, I believe, is in a different category.
“He is not only a Jew; he is a devoted one. He has served in the Israeli army during two wars. He is a highly educated man, and indeed one of some distinction in his profession. He knows people, Israelis like himself, who have told me very similar stories. Finally, this witness, who, it should be said, is unlike the majority of dissident sources in Tel Aviv in that he is anti-communist, has gone so far as to swear a detailed statement which is in the possession of the
Use of napalm against civilians
113. Mr. Sami Oueida (RT.6) testified before the Group that he and his family had been attacked by three airplanes as they fled Jericho on 9 June 1967. He stated that they were alone and clearly distinguishable as civilians; that his daughter was killed in this attack and that he and some members of his family were severely burnt by the incendiary bombs that the airplanes had repeatedly dropped around them (pages 51-55).
114. The Working Group at its twenty-third meeting saw Souhair Maraqa, a six-year old girl, who showed burns over most of her body. Her father, Mohammed Maraqa, who escorted her, testified before the Group, that she had suffered on 7 June 1967 near Jericho, napalm burns over most of her body (RT.15).
115. Dr. Kamal Malek Ghobriel (RT.17) who had been working at the Public Health Hospital at El-Arish from the beginning of hostilities until September 1968, had witnessed six cases of napalm burns, some of which had been transferred to Cairo for skin grafts.
116. According to Mr. Abdulghani Sheik (RT.8), he and his fellow villagers of Keshneya had suffered napalm (and bomb) attacks after the cease-fire on 10 June 1967 (pages 7-10).
117. Sister Marie Therese Lacaze (RT.15) stated that in Jerusalem, she had seen children who had been burnt by napalm. Her testimony referred to the period from 14 June to 1 July 1967 (page 12).
118. Reverend Paul Gauthier (RT.15) testified that on 7 June 1967, he had seen twelve persons who had been burnt by napalm. These persons were hospitalized in the Indian Hospice in Jerusalem (page 19).
119. Dr. El Bek (RT.21) stated that some doctors and patients were killed when the Israelis threw incendiary bombs on the hospital at El-Arish.
120. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic, in a telegram to the Secretary-General on 15 June 1967 (S/7993), stated that Israel used napalm bombs and heavy artillery and tanks against hospitals, youth camps and schools. The contents of this letter were denied by the Permanent Representative of Israel in a letter dated 20 June 1967 (S/8003).
Medical supplies, health and hygiene
121. Dr. Kamal Malek Ghobriel (TR.17) who had been working at the Public Health Hospital at El-Arish from the beginning of hostilities until September 1968, states that the health situation in the town had deteriorated rapidly, mainly due to the lack of medical supplies and trained personnel, but also in part, due to serious economic deterioration. The food situation had been most unsatisfactory throughout the period. The hospital had been forced to obtain food from the civilian population, since its request for supplies from the Israel authorities had been held in suspense for months. Finally a concessionaire from Gaza had supplied food by arrangement with the hospital authorities. The situation regarding medical supplies had been similar. One lorry-load of antibiotics, which had arrived in August 1968, contained medicines which had been out of date since February 1968. The witness had regularly reported such cases to the Red Cross representative in Gaza who had himself been an eyewitness to some of them. The hospital had been without an operating theatre for the months of June and July 1968. In August 1968, a hospital from Tel Aviv had taken over control of the El-Arish Hospital and had promised that doctors and nurses would be sent. In fact, four very recently qualified Israeli doctors had been supplied, but no specialists, who were urgently needed. The main need had been for surgeons, but the Israelis had sent none. The witness had drawn the attention of the Military Commander of El-Arish to the acute dnger of a tuberculosis epidemic in the area, mainly due to the lack of food. Other diseases that had become prevalent, such as hypertension and diabetes, had been due to the nervous depression caused by Israeli terrorism and to lack of medicine.
122. Dr. Mahmoud El-Bek (RT.21) testified that the public water supply in El-Arish was cut off by the Israelis and as a result, many children had died because of epidemics.
123. Mrs. Nancy Abi-Haidar (RT.7) stated that after the cessation of hostilities, relief agencies had not been allowed extra supplies to deal with the situation. She stated that a Red Cross team had been shot at whilst trying to bring in extra supplies across the Jordan.
124. Witness B (RT.7) stated that in a village outside Jerusalem, a serious health hazard was caused when a large rubbish dump was created near the village; she said that this rubbish dump had been put up by the Israelis despite the fact that there were incinerators in good working order which were not being used. The witness was referring to the period of the second week of August 1967.
125. Mr. Hamdi Ali El-Khalili (RT.21) stated that in El-Arish, many people had been forced to carry out unpaid labour for the occupying authorities.
Text of articles of the Convention relative to the evidence analyzed in foregoing sub-sections 1 and 2
“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
“Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
“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.
“However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.
“No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.
“The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
“Pillage is prohibited.
“Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
“Departures permitted under the foregoing article shall be carried out in satisfactory conditions as regards safety, hygiene, sanitation and food. All costs in connexion therewith, from the point of exit in the territory of the Detaining Power, shall be borne by the country of destination, or, in the case of accommodation in a neutral country, by the Power whose nationals are benefited. The practical details of such movements may, if necessary, be settled by special agreements between the Powers concerned.
“The foregoing shall not prejudice such special agreements as may be concluded between Parties to the conflict concerning the exchange and repatriation of their nationals in enemy hands.
“To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary food-stuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
“The Occupying Power may not requisition food-stuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and they only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.
“The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the State of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.
“To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the co-operation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
“If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of articles 20 and 21.
“In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.”
Torture and ill-treatment of detainees
126. Mr. As’ad Abdul Rahman (RT.6 passim) stated that he had been beaten and terrorized several times in the Muscovite Prison, Sarafand Prison, Ramleh and Ramallah Prison during his interrogation.
The same witness also testified that physical and psychological torture was practised on other prisoners, in particular in Sarafand Prison, and he submitted a list of kinds of torture that he knew was practised.
127. The statement of Mr. Rahman was communicated to the Secretary-General in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan of 7 January 1969 (S/8961). In a letter of 13 January 1969 (S/8965) the Permanent Representative of Israel referred to the statement of Mr. Rahman and stated the following:
“... This is undoubtedly the most scurrilous document ever to be circulated in the United Nations. It is atrocity mongering of the cheapest and most vulgar kind and unworthy of the attention of any State Member of the United Nations....”
128. Rev. Elia Khouri (RT.12) stated that he saw and heard evidence of beating and abuse of young detainees in Ramallah Prison during his own detention in March-April 1969. He also stated that he had been shown a young detainee who had suffered a beating and he was threatened with receiving the same treatment (pp.41-54).
129. Witness C saw evidence of beating of twenty five girls in March 1969 in Nablus Prison and in the Muscovite Prison in Jerusalem. She also stated that she had heard cries from the room next to hers in the Muscovite Prison where she had seen persons being taken in and being brought out showing signs of having been beaten.
130. Mrs. Abla Tahha (RT.14) testified as to her own experiences of torture mostly during interrogation; she was pregnant at the time, and her torture was spread over a period of seven months (July 1968-February 1969). She stated that she had suffered torture in the Muscovite Prison in Jerusalem, Haifa Prison and Ramleh Prison. She had also been in Abu Kebir Prison in Tel Aviv and Nablus Prison. Mrs. Tahha told the Group that she had been severely beaten on various areas of her body, especially her abdomen; she was also burnt with cigarette butts all over her body and on these occasions she was stripped naked by Israeli prostitutes with whom she was sharing a cell. She also stated that acts of lesbianism were committed by Israeli women on Arab women prisoners; an attempt was made to have her participate in these acts of lesbianism (pp. 11-15, 26). The witness also stated that she had seen her friend Lutfia El-Hawari being tortured. She said that Miss El-Hawari had had her teeth knocked out during her torture. She also said that in Nablus Prison there was a Bethlehem woman with six children, the youngest of whom was one and a half years old (p.36).
131. Mr. Ismael Abu Mayalan (RT.16) stated that he was the husband of Abla Tahha. He was tortured during detention and his wife had also been tortured. His brother had also been tortured and as a result, he remained in a poor physical condition (p.32).
132. The alleged torture of Abla Tahha and Lutfia El-Hawari is referred to in an interview given by Dr. Felicia Langer, their attorney, and reported in the publication
Palestina och Israel
by Staffan Beckman (Stockhold 1968, Rabén and Sjögren, pp. 104-108). (See annexes.)
133. Mr. Yahya Hassan El-Qatrash (RT.15) testified as to his torture during interrogation. He described his tortures in the Saba Prison and the Atlit Prison which took place during his six months in prison following upon the cease-fire. The witness showed the Group the scars which remained on his head and chest as a result of his torture. The witness alleged that his chest was scarred with several bayonet-inflicted gashes and his right forehead and upper jaw had been smashed as a result of being hit with a rifle butt (pp.28-30).
134. Major Derek Cooper (RT.13) testified that he had gathered evidence from several individuals who had been tortured during their detention by the Israelis, in particular in Jericho Prison. Major Cooper submitted names of such individuals and data regarding their treatment (pp. 82-86).
135. Sheikh Abu Rashed (RT.16) stated that during the ten-month period that he spent in prison (five months in Gaza Prison and five months in Ashkelon Prison), he was beaten regularly. The witness was released and deported in August 1969; he stated that as he had been held as a administrative detainee, he was never brought to trial. He also stated that during his imprisonment he had witnessed a Masri Azam who had become insane after being tortured. Another prisoner, Hassan Abu Teraya, was sharing the cell with Azam and he too had been tortured. The witness also said that he heard cries every night from the torture room nearby (Gaza Prison) and that he had heard that Abu Shaluf, another prisoner, had died because of torture (pp.7-15).
136. Mr. Hamdi Ali El-Khalili (RT.21), a lawyer, stated that he was detained from 7 February to 24 March 1968 in Gaza Central Prison. He stated that he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated. He had also seen other prisoners being taken in for interrogation and carried out afterwards. The witness also stated that he was never charged with an offence and when released he had checked this with the Public Prosecutor who informed him that no charges had been filed against him (the witness).
137. Mr. Abdallah Gibril Abid (RT.21) stated that he was beaten during his detention in Gaza Central Prison in 1968. He was also kept in a cell without a bed or covering for six weeks. He had reported his ill-treatment at the hands of the Israelis to a representative of the Red Cross who visite Gaza Prison.
138. Mr. Ismail Ahmed Zikri (RT.20) testified that he was constantly ill-treated, beaten and tortured for prolonged periods in Gaza Central Prison. He was always denied medical attention and when he requested to see a Red Cross representative he was told there was none. He was released from prison after fifty-three days.
139. Mr. Mohammed Rabi’ El-Sherif (RT.19) stated that he was beaten while under arrest. He also stated that his eighteen-year old son had been tortured extensively. They both lived in El-Arish.
140. Mr. Solomon Moussa Ibrahim (RT.19) testified that he was tortured day and night. He was from Bar El-Add in the Sinai region.
141. Witness E (RT.19) stated that when she had visited her husband in Nablus Prison in August 1967, she repeatedly saw marks of torture on him.
142. Mr. Ahmed El-Matari (RT.19) testified that he was tortured and beaten repeatedly by Israeli troops during periods under arrest in El-Arish.
143. Dr. Kamal Malek-Ghobriel (RT.17) who had been working at the Public Health Hospital at El-Arish from the beginning of hostilities until September 1968, had witnessed evidence of ill-treatment including torture on patients brought to the hospital from Israeli police posts and the Israeli Army. The witness mentions as examples of ill-treatment and torture: blows from rifle butts on tender parts of the body; burns on the feet of patients with hot wires or iron; blows on the head of patients which had produced concussion and deafness. The witness had personally witnessed one case of a patient subjected to electric shock treatment by the Israeli authorities. The witness also stated that these patients whose feet were burned with hot wires or iron were brought from Israeli police stations in handcuffs and after treatment, had been taken back to the police stations. The witness states that, at an average, there had been ten cases of torture per day submitted by Israeli police posts and two cases per day submitted by the Israeli Army in the period he had done service at he El-Arish hospital after the Israeli occupation. Those cases that had been submitted by an Israli police post or by the Israeli Army were so registered in the reception room book. He had on several occasions shown the book to the representative of the Red Cross, translating the Arabic entries for him. From August 1968 onwards, the entries were in Hebrew and it had then become impossible for the witness to give indications such as those he had previously inserted.
144. Miss Camilia Kamal Solomon El Zerbawi (RT.17), fifteen years old, testified that one of her brothers, aged eighteen, had been held for two months in prison. The treatment there had been very bad and the prisoners had been forced to sleep on the ground and had been kept short of food and water.
145. Miss Feihag Abdilh Edi (RT.18), eighteen years old, testified that on 14 March 1969, she and her mother had been arrested and accused of belonging to the resistance. She had been beaten and insulted, as a result of which he had limped for three weeks afterwards. To put psychological pressure on her, the witness had been beaten in front of her mother. The person who had tortured the witness had stated that he took pleasure in doing so. Concerning the methods of torture in the Nablus Prison where she had been detained, the witness stated that these were both physical and psychological. The torturers attacked the sensitive parts of the body, particularly the sexual regions. The witness testified that the following torture had been inflicted on girls she had known in the Nablus Prison: (1) Nimet Ayoub Kamal had been struck with a steel bar, and her hand paralysed, and one of the torturers had tried to urinate on her; (2) Sinal Hambaly had been struck with the same steel bar and she had had a nervous breakdown subsequent to torture. One of the torturers had tried to rape her. She had also been drawn by her hair which was long; (3) Randa El Nabouky had been struck by a torturer on the eyes and ears, and the torturer had attempted to rape her; (4) Siham El Wazany had been beaten and drawn by her hair and one of the torturers had attempted to rape her. The witness further testified that she had learnt through her parents about cases of electric torture and mentioned the names of Rasmeya Aode and Aicha Aode. The witness also knew that Mariam Shakshib had suffered considerable torture. The witness added that there were internee camps where nothing could be proved, but where she knew that young girls were held, and she mentiioned the names of Sawsan Saleh, Yahouds Ersh and Rada Abdel Hady. The witness stated that the cases of torture she had personally witnessed had taken place in the Nablus Prison, but that the torturers had been brought from the Muscovite Prison in Jerusalem. The girls arrested and held in the Muscovite Prison had, according to her information, suffered far worse tortures than those who had been held in the Nablus Prison. As examples of what she called psychological torture, the witness mentioned that prisoners would be left without food, they would be forced to witness the torture of others and they were placed in a room next to the torture chamber.
146. In a closed meeting, the Special Working Group also heard evidence of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Gaza Prison and in the Rafah police station. The information that the Group has is to the effect that during 1968 it was ascertained that certain individuals in detention showed obvious signs of having been tortured, severely beaten and burnt with cigarettes in the face. Some of these individuals are: Mohammed Hassan Lydda, eighteen years of age, Meshmat Mohammed Yassini, Salah Mohammed Keslatat, twenty-four, Khanis Rabi’Abu Nubeira, twenty-five, Youssef Ayed Abu Jadallah, Ibrahim Hassan Abu Deraya’a, Ahmed Ally Abu Mugsina, Sawalim Abu Shaluf. In all cases of torture and maltreatment reported, the author was always a policeman rather than a prison warden; prisoners were only allowed thirty minutes of walking per week in a small courtyard. Gaza Prison was also reported as being overcrowded (360 persons capacity, but actually housing 507 inmates), and severely lacking in hygiene facilities.
147. Dr. Ahmed Abu Qoura (RT.16) presented the Group with reports of representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross on visits to various prisons. With regard to the Hebron Prison, visited on 31 October and 13 November 1968, a report states:
Conditions during interrogations
“On the other hand, it appeared from private conversations held with prisoners that suspects were brutally treated during the investigation. The names of some prisoners who bore tangible marks of such maltreatment were taken down by the delegates.
Duration of the police investigation
“The delegates noted that the duration of solitary confinement was prolonged; this deprived prisoners of all contact with the outside world and also of any possibility of being interviewed by the representatives of the ICRC.”
Another report, on a visit to Tulkarm Prison conducted on 16 October 1968, states:
“A rather serious complaint was lodged by the prisoners Kamal Khmaish and Abdul Salam Khmaish. After being arrested together the previous month, they had apparently been beaten with clubs (traces were still visible on the nape of Kamal Khmaish’s neck) and electric contacts had apparently been placed inside their ears during their interrogation at the Tulkarm police station.
“The prisoners stated that Sgt. Major Cohen had been present during these tortures during which they had allegedly been given electric shocks until they lost consciousness and bled through the mouth and nose.”
148. The articles of the Fourth Convention relevant to the evidence analyzed in subsection 3, are also the following:
“No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”
“Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in persons in the occupied country.
“They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.
“They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.
“Women shall be confined in separate quarters and shall be under the direct supervision of women.
“Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.
“Protected persons who are detailed shall have the right to be visited by delegations of the Protecting Power and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143.
“Such persons shall have the right to receive at least one relief parcel monthly.”
Ill-treatment of children
149. Witness A (RT.7) stated that in Ramallah in 1968 some children of a Protestant mission school had staged a sit down strike in the local mosque. He had seen all the children of the school marched out into the square where they had been made to sit in the sun for a whole day without food or water until 4.00 p.m. when the Military Governor arrived to give them a lecture in Hebrew, a language which they do not understand.
150. Rev. Elia Khouri (RT.12) testified that in Ramallah during the period September-December 1968, he had seen Israeli soldiers flogging twelve-thirteen year-old girls mercilessly with sticks and rifles in the streets. He also stated that when primary and secondary school girls had demonstrated they had been beaten up by Israeli soldiers (page 36).
151. Abdel Rahman Nasr (RT.16), twelve years of age, said in a written statement received by the Group (page 2), that he had been beaten by an Israeli officer with a wooden ruler every day for six days.
152. Ismail Gamal El-Zirbawi (RT.20), fifteen years old, testified that he had been arrested twice by Israeli troops in El-Arish. He was tortured as a result of which his left leg had been broken.
153. Miss Camilia Kamal Solomon El Zerbawi (RT.17), fifteen years old, testified before the Group that on 7 June 1967, in El-Arish, her house had been surrounded by tanks and a number of Israeli soldiers had rushed in. They had struck the children with rifle butts, and her younger brother had been knocked unconscious. The witness also stated that in El-Arish, the Israeli troops entered the houses in the middle of the night and treated the women and children very badly.
154. Mrs. Narges El Sayed Abraham (RT.17) testified that when the Israelis had broken down the doors and burst into their house, the Israelis had threatened to cut the throat of the seven-year old son of the witness if she refused to do what they aid. The boy had been very roughly treated by the Israelis and his arm was still badly dislocated and deformed.
155. Mrs. Watfa Hassan Amar (RT.17) testified that when the Israeli army had occupied her village, soldiers had entered her house and she had been forced to leave with her ten-year old daughter. The soldiers had fired their rifles and her daughter had dies in her arms. The witness stated that her daughter had died suddenly of fright, caused by the firing.
156. Moussa Ali Kuneibi (RT.21) stated that he had seen Israeli soldiers attacking students, injuring some ten of them.
157. Dr. A. Abu Qoura (RT.16) presented to the Group a report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on a visit to Nablus Prison which took place on 17 and 19 September 1968. The report states,
“The number [of prisoners] also included a girl of twelve years of age (a case of ordinary law ... released on 26 September), and two boys of fifteen years of age, one sentenced to one year and the other awaiting trial, both for security reasons.”
158. The text of article 50 of the Fourth Convention, besides the articles quoted with reference to subsections 1 and 2, is relevant to the evidence analyzed in this section:
“The occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.
“The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.
“Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend ....”.
Taking of hostages
159. Mr. Mohammed Cesium Daoud (RT.8) testified that when the villagers of Bteiha were ordered to leave, several young men were taken as hostages by the Israelis (Page 71).
160. Mr. Abraham Mustafa Abraham (RT.15) stated that when the population of Emmaus was being marched out towards Ramallah by the Israelis, thirty-seven young men were taken as hostages or prisoners (page 3).
161. Mr. Muneef Ramadan (RT.9) stated that when the Israeli troops entered his village, Zaaour, they took seven young men as hostages. They had later been returned alive and well (pages 11-15).
162. Mr. Hamdi Ali El-Khalili (RT.21) testified that in El-Arish, the Israeli troops took hostages when they could not find the persons whom they were searching for.
163. Article 34 of the Fourth Convention provides:
“The taking of hostages is prohibited.”
Allegations regarding violations of articles 64-75 relating
to penal legislation and penal procedure
164. Mr. Yehia Abou Shehla (RT.18) who had been Deputy Judge in the Gaza Strip until his departure for Cairo on 26 July 1967 testified that in the first week of July 1967 an Israeli officer named Abraham had appeared in uniform in the court room accompanied by an Israeli soldier holding a loaded sub machine gun. The officer had announced that he had instructions from the Military Governor to alter the Court procedure of the Gaza Strip. The witness had told the Israeli officer that he was not prepared to collaborate with him, but the officer had said that in that case the new procedure would be approved in his absence. The witness had told the Israeli officer that his orders were illegal, since the Gaza Strip was governed by a Constitution and Laws of its own which had been observed by the Egyptians for twenty years.
The Israeli officers had then pounded his fist on the table, and told him to be quiet. The officer had added that he had drawn the attention of the Israeli officer to the Geneva Convention. The latter had replied that Moshe Dayan had decided to annex the Gaza Strip to Israel; it was now an integral part of that country and therefore the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The witness further testified that three weeks later Israeli troops had searched his house and caused fear and terror among the women and children. They had also searched the houses of friends and colleagues, one of whom had been beaten and kept in jail for two days without cause. Another friend had informed the witness that the Israeli officer Abraham was preparing to take revenge on him for not returning to his post. In fear of his life, therefore, the witness had secretly left Gaza without taking any of his possessions with him. His fears had proved justified since one of his friends, Judge Shawky el Farra had been killed by the Israelis shortly afterwards. The witness was of the opinion that these measures were not motivated by reasons of security, but rather by a policy of Zionist expansion.
Right of defence
165. In her testimony, Abla Tahha (RT.14) stated that the Israeli authorities refused to let her see her lawyer and when they eventually did so, they harassed her lawyer (Dr. Felicia Langer) (p.16-20, 41). Dr Felicia Langer, in an interview reported by Steffan Beckman in “Palestina och Israel”, refers,
, to her defence of Mrs. Tahha and the conditions under which she conducted it.
166. Mr. Beckman also makes several references to Dr. Langer’s fear of reprisal or intimidation for her activities as defence counsel for several Arabs accused of guerrilla activities.
167. In his statement As’ad Abdul Rahman (RT.6) stated that his lawyers “were under great duress” whilst defending him. (P.13).
168. The Permanent Representative of Jordan in a letter dated 12 December 1968 (S/8930) transmitted a resolution adopted by the Arab Regional Conference on Human Rights which alleged that Mrs. Rouhi El-Khatib, Mrs. Tewfik Al-Husseini and Mrs. Najla Al-Naboulsi were sentenced without trial to three months imprisonment and that they were denied the right to defend themselves.
169. Mohammed Rabih El Sherif (RT.19) testified that his son (18 years) was tried by a military court. He had been defended by an Israeli army lawyer who had done little or nothing to defend his son. The judge at his son’s trial spoke Hebrew which the witness did not understand.
170. Sheikh Solomon Moussa Abraham (RT.17) who is chief of the El Rawayeh Tribe from Bar el-Add in the Kherba zone in the Sinai region said that two members of his tribe, Mr. Mausor Eid Mausour and Mr Rabih Rasuidou Solomon had been imprisoned by the Israeli forces when these reentered his village two weeks after the commencement of hostilities. These two men had not been soldiers and had been arrested while in their homes. To the best of the knowledge of the witness these prisoners were still in prison.
171. According to Mr. Yehia Abou Shahla (RT.18), who had been Deputy Judge in the Gaza Strip until his departure for Cairo on 26 July 1967, in the first week of July 1967 an Israeli military vehicle had appeared at his house with an Israeli officer named Abraham and an Israeli soldier named Hor Khassiso. The officer had forced the witness against his will to bear witness against some of his friends.
172. The relevant articles of the Fourth Convention are the following:
“The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.
“The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.
“The penal provisions enacted by the occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effectof these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.
“In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64, the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.
“The courts shall apply only those provisions of law which were applicable prior to the offence, and which are in accordance with general principles of law, in particular the principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the offence. They shall take into consideration the fact that the accused is not a national of the occupying Power.
“Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
“The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
“The death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
“In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
“In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment awarded.
“Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.
“Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.
“No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.
“Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. The Protecting Power shall be ifnromed of all proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons in respect of charges involving the death penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against protected persons.
“The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not proceed. The notification shall include the following particulars:
) description of the accused;
place of residence or detention;
) specification of the charge o charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it is brought);
) designation of the court which will hear the case;
) place and date of the first hearing.
“Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.
“Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.
“Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have at any time the right to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
“A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court. He shall be fully informed of his right to appeal or petition and of the time-limit within which he may do so.
“The penal procedure provided in the present Section shall apply, as far as it is applicable, to appeals. Where the laws applied by the Court make no provision for appeals, the convicted person shall have the right to petition against the finding and sentence to the competent authority of the Occupying Power.
“Representatives of the Protecting Power shall have the right to attend the trial of any protected person, unless the hearing has, as an exceptional measure, to be held
in the interests of the security of the Occupying Power, which shall then notify the Protecting Power. A notification in respect of the date and place of trial shall be sent to the Protecting Power.
“Any judgement involving a sentence of death, or imprisonment for two years or more, shall be communicated, with the relevant grounds, as rapidly as possible to the Protecting Power. The notification shall contain a reference to the notification made under Article 71 and, in the case of sentences of imprisonment, the name of the place where the sentence is to served. A record of judgements other than those referred to above shall be kept by the court and shall be open to inspection by representatives of the Protecting Power. Any period allowed for appeal in the case of sentences involving the death penalty, or imprisonment of two years or more, shall not run until notification of judgement has been received by the Protecting Power.
“In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.
No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgement confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.
The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided always that the Protecting Power is notified of such reduction and is given reasonable time and opportunity to make representations to the competent occupying authorities in respect of such death sentences.”
Allegations regarding the respect for property of protected persons
173. Several witnesses testified as to the destruction of the villages of Yalu, Beit Nuba and Emmaus, in the Latrun area.
Yalu, Beit Nuba, Emmaus
174. Witness A (RT.13) stated that he had seen in mid-October 1967, Israelis carrying away the ruins of the villages in trucks. On 25 December 1967 he had seen the Israelis destroying the remaining houses in Ammaus as well as the mosque. He saw the Israelis levelling the ruins and planting trees in their place. He also stated that the village of Emmaus had not been touched during or by the hostilities. He stated that the destruction of the three villages took place in stages. Finally the grounds had been planted and sold off by the Israelis. The villages had previously been removed.
The witness also stated that an Israeli friend of his from a neighbouring kibbutz had informed him that the destruction had taken place on higher orders.
175. Mr. Abraham Mustafa Abraham, (RT.14) muktar of Emmaus, testified that the population of his village had been forced to leave and to walk to Ramallah. Twenty-seven persons were taken as hostages during this time. He stated that their houses were all completely destroyed; the Israelis had offered to purchase their land from them but the villagers had refused. The population was eventually loaded on lorries by the Israelis, carried for some distance and deposited on a road and told to head for the Jordan river.
176. Reverend Paul Gauthier (RT.15) made reference to the testimony of the muktar of Emmaus (Abraham Mustafa Abraham - RT.14) and stated that the same applied to the villages of Yalu and Beit Nuba. He also stated that he witnessed bulldozers destroying these villages: eight were used in Emmaus, two in Yalu and two in Beit Nuba. The witness said that he saw tractors from the kibbutz nearby tilling the land owned by the inhabitants of these three villages. The witness further testified that an Israeli officer had asked a monk from a neighbouring monastery to point out to him the buildings in the villages that had a historical value, in order to spare such buildings from the general destruction.
177. The destruction at Yalu, Beit Nuba and another village is described in a newspaper article annexed to a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan dated 18 June 1968 (S/8642) and in a letter to the Secretary-General from the inhabitants of the villages of Emmaus, Yalu and Beit Nuba sent from Ramallah on 5 July 1968. This letter is reproduced as an annex to a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/8789) dated 29 August 1968.
178. The representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Nils-Goran Gussing also referred to the destruction of Emmaus, Yalu and Beit Nuba (S/8158) in his report issued on 2 October 1967 wherein it is stated
“60.The Israel Minister of Defence, in his meeting with the
Special Representative, stated that he had ordered the destruction of these damaged villages for strategic and security reasons since they dominated an important strategic area.”
179. Witnesses also made statements concerning mass destruction in Qalqilyah. Witness B (RT.7) testified that she had seen the large number of houses that had been destroyed. As proof of the fact that such destruction had been carried out deliberately and not during military action, the witness mentioned that next to the destroyed buildings young trees had left untouched.
180. Witness C (RT.13) stated that she had seen houses being destroyed by Israelis in Qalqiyah after the cease-fire.
181. Sister Marie Therese Lacaze (RT.14) stated that she had seen the ruins of the houses in Qalqilyah. She stated that 3/4 of Qalqilyah had been systematically destroyed by the Israelis who used tanks and dynamite for this purpose. Sister Marie Therese was in Qalqilyah at some time during the period 14 June 1967-1 July 1967. The witness also stated that she had seen people living in the ruins of their homes.
182. The destruction that took place in Qalqilyah was mentioned in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/8004) dated 21 June 1967, which states:
“As of 7 June 1967, the Israeli authorities occupied the town of Qalqilyah evacuated its inhabitants by force and moved them to Nablus Mosque and to the olive groves surrounding that town. Having thus removed them, they commenced to demolish all the houses in the town, which demolition was still in progress as of 20 June.
“It is obvious that this is part of a well-calculated plan, which involved several other front-line villages, and which aims at obliterating the demographic structure of the area.”
183. The reply of the Permanent Representative of Israel is contained in a letter dated 23 June 1967 (S/8013) which states”
The village of Qalqiyah was one of the concentration points of this general attack. Large numbers of troops and artillery were deployed in and around the village. Commencing on 5 June, heavy and continuous fire was opened from Qalqiyah and its environs on Israeli villages, and Tel Aviv itself was shelled from Qalqiyah.
As part of this aggression, the inhabitants of Qalqiyah voluntarily evacuated the village before it was occupied by Israel forces - doubtless out of a sense of guilt for the prolonged shelling in which they had assisted.
The village itself ceased to be a civilian and became a military outpost for the Jordanian units, which carried on the war from it. In the course of the battle of 6 June between units of the Jordanian and Israeli army, a large number of houses in which Jordanian soldiers had established themselves were damaged. Since the end of the battle, no further buildings have been destroyed.
I wish to point out that near Qalqilyah is the town of Tulkarm. There was no fighting in that town and it is undamaged. Its population remains there and life continued normally.
184. The mayor of Qalqilyah is reported in document S/8158 (report by Mr. N. Gussing to the Secretary-General dated 2 October 1967) as stating that some fifteen to twenty houses had been destroyed or damaged during actual fighting. It goes on “54 ... Three weeks after they left their city, the population was allowed to go back to Qalqilyah. Upon their return they found that out of a total of some 2,000 dwellings approximately 850 had been demolished. The mayor repeatedly stated that he did not know the reasons for this large-scale destruction. 55. The Israeli military Governor stated that the destruction had been caused partly by tanks and partly by dynamite... . Houses from which sniping took place were dynamited. Others were destroyed for ‘safety’ reasons, those houses, for instance, on the point of collapsing and pollibly containing unexploded ammunition, or for sanitary reasons, that is, because of the presence of dead bodies.”
Other cases of mass destruction
185. Mr. Abraham Abu Seheiban (RT.14) stated that he had seen approximately twenty-four buildings each containing four apartments, destroyed by Israeli troops. These buildings were located near camp X.
186. Mr. Saleh Nazhani (RT.15) stated that although no sabotage or hostile acts had taken place from the village (Noseriat), 700 houses had been destroyed completely by the Israelis after the whole population had been forcefully deported to Jordan. This took place on 3 December 1967 (p.27).
187. Sheikh Abu Rashed (RT.16) stated that the tents in the Jabaliah refugee camps were attacked by the Israelis during the hostilities; many homes had been demolished (pp.9-10)
188. Dr. Mohamoud El-Bek (RT.21) stated that twenty houses and most of the mosques in El-Arish were destroyed.
189. Solimian Moussa Abraham (RT.19) stated that the Israelis dynamited seventeen houses in Bar-el-Add.
190. In a letter dated 31 January 1968 (S/8373) the representative of the United Arab Republic reported that on 24 November 1967 144 houses in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip were bulldozed in a single night. In the same latter, it is reported that on 29 November 1967, several buildings in Deir el Balah, an Arab town in the occupied Gaza Strip, were destroyed in reprisal for the alleged murder of an Israeli volunteer.
191. In a letter dated 3 October 1967 (S/8178) the Permanent Representative of Syria stated that from the second half of August 1967 Israeli forces were destroying houses and the water reservoir of the village of Kafr El-Mâ in the occupied part of Syria. In the same letter it is stated that on 7 September 1967, Israeli forces commenced the destruction of the Syrian village of El-Hurriah.
192. The representative of Syria, in a letter dated 15 October 1968 (S/8557) stated that Israel had completely destroyed the village of Somamain and the village of Ahmediye in occupied Syrian territory. The representative of Israel in a letter dated 21 October 1968 (S/8863) stated that the Syrian representative had exaggerated what was the demolition of some abandoned and damaged houses, which constituted a risk because they were in danger of collapse. In two subsequent letters dated 7 November 1968 (S/8893) and 21 November 1968 (S/8904), the representative of Syria stated that the villages were indeed inhabited and that the destruction was designed to drive out the Arabs and establish Israeli settlements.
193. In a letter of 4 March 1969 (S/9042) the representative of Syria stated that Israel had burnt the village of Khisfine in the occupied Syrian territory. This incident was reiterated in a letter of 4 April 1969 (S/9131) which alleges demolition of houses in occupied Syrian territory and in the village of Aboukhsit. The representative of Israel referred to the letter contained in document S/9131 in a letter of 15 April 1969 (S/9158) where it is stated that the question of the veracity of the allegations is not discussed.
194. In annex I to his letter dated 30 September 1969 (S/9459) the representative of Syria makes a summary list of Syrian villages allegedly demolished or burned down by Israeli occupying authorities, as follows:
Name of Village
Date of destruction
18 Sept.-18 Nov. 1968
Continued despite Syrian protests to UNTSO
10-30 Oct. 1968
26 Feb. 1969
Burned down by Israeli authorities
Group of dwellings
26 March 1969
31 March 1969
31 March 1969
8 April 1969
7 April 1969
7 April 1969
6 April 1969
Maqam Abi Daher
7 April 1969
Cluster of dwellings
27 April 1969
27, 28 April 1969
Continued despite Syrian protests to UNTSO
20 June 1969
Al-Rafid (5 houses)
23 June 1969
7 July 1969
Cluster of houses
13 July 1969
Cluster of houses
13 July 1969
195. The representative of Jordan stated in a letter dated 10 August 1967 (S/8117) that the border villages of Beit Awwa and Beit Marsam were completely destroyed by the Israelis several days after the hostilities had ceased. The representative of Israel in a letter of 16 August 1967 (S/8123) referred to the destruction of these two villages and stated that these were scenes of heavy fighting during the hostilities and the extremely heavy damage was caused in them.
Destruction of houses and certain buildings
196. The Group received testimony regarding the destruction of houses in the occupied area of Jerusalem.
197. Mr. Moussa Abussond (RT.6) testified that the fourteen houses in Jerusalem that the Israelis had expropriated from his family had all been demolished. He also stated that he had seen houses that were destroyed in Jerusalem which houses had been vacated so summarily that the occupants were not given time to carry out their furniture. These houses were adjacent to the Western Wall (pp. 62-66).
198. Mr. Abraham Al-Abid (TR.5) quoted the Israeli newspaper
of 22 March 1969 which contained a description of the destruction of a house in Jerusalem during early March 1969 (pp. 56-61).
199. Bishop Simaan (RE.12) stated that the Syrian Catholic Church had been destroyed and the Church of St. Anna had been damaged after the cessation of hostilities. Both churches are situated in Jerusalem (p.11).
200. Destruction of houses is also referred to in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan on 21 March 1969 (S/9102). This letter mentions the destruction of six houses in Jerusalem, four houses in Gaza, four houses in Ramallah, three in Al-Khalil, two in Nablus and one house in Bar Zeit. In a letter on 6 November 1968 (S/8990), the Permanent Representative of Jordan communicated that several buildings in Jerusalem had been demolished.
201. In letters dated 8 April 1969 (S/9139) and 11 April 1969 (S/9150) the Permanent Representative of Syria stated that Israel had destroyed houses in Quneitra, Abizeium, Tel-Esseqi, Razzaniya and Khan El-Joukhadar. The Permanent Representative of Israel referred to these allegations in a letter dated 15 April 1969 (S/9158) which states:
“On instructions from my Government I have the honour to refer to the letters addressed to you by the Permanent Representative of Syria on 4 (S/9131), 8 (S/9139, S/9141) and 11 April 1969 (S/9150), and without discussing the question of the veracity of allegations contained in them, to state:
Syria has no right or grounds for complaint over defence measures taken by Israel on its side of the cease-fire line, particularly when these measures are essential in face of repeated Syrian attempts to violate the cease-fire by its regular forces and by marauders and saboteurs.
“In his letters, the Permanent Representative of Syria tries to divert attention from his Government’s persistent policy of aggression, which is expressed in its rejection of the Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967, its opposition to any peace-making effort, and the waging of terror warfare against Israel in flagrant violation of the cease-fire.”
202. The representative of Syria, in a letter of 9 May 1969 (S/9199) makes reference to the destruction of houses in the Syrian village of Aache.
203. Sheikh Solomon Moussa Abraham (RT.17), chief of the El Rawayeh Tribe from Bar El-Add in the Kherba Zone in the Sinai Region, testified that when the Israeli forces re-entered his village two weeks after the commencement of hostilities the Israeli forces had forced the inhabitants to leave their houses which they had then burned down.
204. Mr. Salem Gomma Ghorab (RT.17), chief of the Dawaghera Tribe of the Bar el-Add Region of Mousfiq, testified that one or two months after the occupation of the village the Israelis had demolished the school, which was named after himself, with a bulldozer. Subsequently his own house had been demolished. Askef if he could give any reason why his house had been demolished, the witness testified that the Israelis had asked him if he lover President Nastier to which the witness had replied in the affirmative. The Israelis had also tried to persuade him to procure men to work for them, but he had not done so. The witness further testified that other houses in the village belonging to Mr.Hag Selim Selmy Gadoose, Sweilim Ayesh, and Hamdan Salem had been destroyed as well as the Mozque of the Zone of Mousfiq.
205. According to Sheikh Salem Ally el Hersh (RT.17), chief of a tribe in the Rabat District from Region Bar el-Add, three houses in his village, including his own, had been burned down, and that two rest-houses in the village had been demolished.
206. Mrs. Watfa Hassan Amar (RT.17) testified that the Israeli army had burned down her house in Roumana Village after entering the house and forced her to leave it.
207. Mr.Yehia Abou Shehla (RT.18) testified that he had seen the Israelis demolishing houses in Gaza including that of Mr.Habib Birady and that of the Abu Ramadan family.
208. Miss Aisha Vati Ghazy (RT.18) eighteen years old testified that the house of her family had been dynamited by the Israelis.
209. Mr. Rateb Saleh El Bek (RT.18) testified that the Israelis had dynamited his house in the village Ezba Asakha.
210. Mr. Abdel Aziz Solomon Marzouk (RT.18) testified that the Israelis had burned twenty houses in the village El Mohamed some twenty kilometres from Bar El Add some forty days after the war.
211. Mr. Moussa Abussoud (TY.6) stated that he and his family owned fourteen houses in occupied Jerusalem. The fourteen houses had been expropriated by the Israeli authorities. He also stated that he had been offered compensation but that this had been refused (p.62).
212. Mr. Ruhi Khatib (RT.12), the expelled Mayor of Jerusalem, stated that the Israeli Government had expropriated several dunums of land in and around occupied Jerusalem. He also stated that several homes belonging to Arabs that had been expropriated were demolished (p.66).
213. The expropriation of 838 acres of land adjacent to the old city on 11 January 1968 is also mentioned in a letter dated 23 January 1968 from the representative of Lebanon (S/8354).
214. The question of the expropriation of land in occupied Jerusalem has also figured extensively in letters to the Secretary-General from the Permanent Representatives of interested Governments. References to the expropriations in Jerusalem are contained in the letters reproduced as Security Council documents as follows: S/8427 and Add.1, S/8433, S/8439 and Add.1, S/8552, S/8507, S/8546, S/8634, S/8661, S/8666, S/8667.
215. Mr. Hamdi El-Khalili (RT.21) stated that in El-Arish the Israelis had forced the farmers who had been forced to leave their lands to sign documents renouncing their property. Thus the Israelis seized farms, including a number of co-operative farms.
Looting and pillage
216. The representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Nils-Goran Gussing, in his report issued on 2 October 1967 (S/8158), stated:
“Israel spokesmen informed the Special Representative on several occasions that the Israel authorities had taken measures to prevent looting and to stop it when it occurred, including the court martialling of army personnel caught in the act of looting.”
217. Mr. Emil El-Ghouri (RT.6) stated that his own house in Jerusalem in which he was living at the time was ransacked during the period 9-21 June 1967 (p.28-30).
218. Mr. Mohmoud Saleh Sejf (RT.6) stated that his shop in Jericho as well as others he had witnessed, were looted after the hostilities of June 1967 had ended. He had also seen Israeli troops dismantling and removing machinery from the factories and workshops in Jericho (pp.58-61).
219. Mrs. Nancy Abi-Haidar (RT.7) stated that in Jerusalem, she had seen looting still going on by Israelis up to six weeks after the cessation of the hostilities in June 1967. She also stated that United Nations and UNRWA personnel had informed her that United Nations and UNRWA property had been extensively looted. She said that looting had continued during late hours when curfew was in effect. Mrs. Abi-Haidar mentioned that in one instance she had seen an electronic goods store being looted under supervision of Israeli officers.
220. Bishop Simaan (RT.12) testified that certain Catholic churches in the West Bank had been looted. (pp.7-10).
221. Bishop Diodoros (RT.12) stated that the St. Elias Church on Bethlehem Road had been looted. He also stated that on 8 June 1967 in Jerusalem he had seen Israeli troops stealing cars and that his own had been looted. (pp. 22-26).
222. Rev. Paul Gauthier (RT.15) stated that tractors belonging to the inhabitants of Yalu, Emmaus and Beit Nuba were taken away from them by the Israelis. He believed that they had been given to neighbouring kibbutz (p.21).
223. The witness also stated that he had seen looting going on in Jerusalem on 7, 8, and 9 June 1967 by Israeli men and women. In a particular case of looting mentioned by the witness, a Rabbi of the IDF intervened to end the looting when so approached by the witness (pp. 21-22).
224. Rev. Gauthier also testified that he had come across a Red Crescent van which had been stolen by a young Israeli. The witness had found this out whilst talking to the young man (p.21).
225. Mr. Saleh Nazhani (RT.15) testified that the Israelis had taken away thirty-four tractors and 4,000 dunums of land belonging to the villagers of Noseirat whom they had forcefully deported to Jordan. He also stated that as the villagers were being loaded on trucks to be deported, the Israelis robbed them of all previous items that they were carrying (p.26).
226. Mr. Abdulghani Shik (RT.8) stated that on 11 June 1967, when the Israeli troops entered his village they looted all the houses therein. The village is that of Keshneya (pp. 11-15).
227. According to Mr. Muhammed Kubsi (RT.8), his house was looted by Israeli troops on 12 June 1967 (p.37-40).
228. Mr. Mohammed El-Arour (RT.8) stated that when all the villagers of Razzanija had been told to quit their homes they were told to leave their homes unlocked. All the houses were subsequently pillaged by the Israeli troops (p.46).
229. Mr. Mohammed Mohieddine Sleek (RT.8) stated that soon after Israeli troops entered Quneitra, the villagers were stripped of all their precious belongings on their way to assembling in accordance with instructions issued by the Israelis (pp.96-100).
230. Mr. Abraham Ghawdjel (RT.8) stated that the homes of all the people in the Quneitra region, who had been kept assembled for a fortnight in a particular part of the town, were pillaged (p.51).
231. Mrs. Nimet Mahmoud Saleh (RT.9) testified that she and the other women from their village had been separated from the menfolk and they were systematically robbed of their money and their jewellery by the Israelis (p.46).
232. Mr. Hussein Khaled Naajel (RT.9) stated that the women of the village had been grouped off from the men and they were systematically robbed of their money and their jewellery (p.61).
233. Mr. Mohmoud Khairallah (RT.9) from Quneitra stated that the day after they entered the town the Israelis looted UNRWA storehouses. He also stated that the houses of most inhabitants were looted by the Israelis, who assigned the people to different houses (p.67-70).
234. Mr. Mohammed Abdel Meguid (RT.9) testified that on 13 June 1967 the Israeli troops looted the whole village of Ein Ziwan. He also stated that the village, which is situated between the two roads leading to Quneitra, was subjected to looting every day by patrols. The villagers were finally forced to leave for Syria on 23 June 1967 (pp.77-81).
235. Mr. Tayyim El-Ghuzzi (RT.9) stated that as the population of the village of Bteiha was being forced to unoccupied Syria on 13 June 1967 he saw Israeli troops systematically robbing the villagers of all their possessions (p.96).
236. Dr. Mahmoud El-Bek (RT.21) stated that in the hospital where he was (El-Arish area) the Israelis had removed the dispensary and that the Red Crescent hospital had been converted into a police station and torture chamber. He also testified that all but two of the ambulances in the zone had been carried off to Israel.
237. Sheikh Solomon Moussa Abraham (RT.17), chief of the El Rawayeh Tribe from Bar el Add in the Kherba Zone in the Sinai Region, testified that the Israeli forces re-entered his village two weeks after the commencement of hostilities. The witness had owned two shops stocked with food, all of which had been confiscated by the Israelis. Later the tribe of the witness had been forced to leave the village and to proceed towards Egypt. They had been pursued by Israeli helicopters whose crews had caught up with them, landed and forced them to surrender all their valuables.
238. Mr. Salem Gomaa Ghorab (RT.17), chief of the Dawaghera Tribe of the Bar el-Add Region of Mousfig, testified that one or two months after the occupation of his village the Israelis had pillaged the school canteen, stolen all the food with which it was stocked and destroyed it. Subsequently, they had carried out all the firewood in his house, which had then been destroyed.
239. Sheikh Salem Ally el Hersh (RT.17), chief of tribe in the Rabat District from region Bar el-Add, testified that when the Israeli soldiers entered the village they had forced the villagers to leave their houses wearing only the clothes they had on at the time. They had taken all their valuables and jewellery.
240. According to Mr. Yehia Abou Shahla (RT.18). who had been Deputy Judge in the Gaza Strip, there had been more looting in the occupied territories than he could recount. He himself had seen troops breaking into shops and looting them.
241. Mr. Ratib Saleh El Bek (RT.18) who was a railway employee from Kantara East testified that the Israelis had looted his furniture and cattle before dynamiting his house.
242. Mr. Mahmoud Abdel Moneim Aghour (RT.18) testified that the Israelis had imposed a curfew on the city of El Arish, had broken open the doors of the depots and pillaged houses. They had taken everything of value from the houses.
243. Mr. Sahmoud Mahmoud El Yemen (RT.18) testified that on the second day of the war when the Israelis had entered the village of Bar El-Add, they had looted the houses.
244. Mr. Moussa Ali Kuneibi (RT.21) said that during the ten days that he and his family had been held by the Israelis, he had witnessed Israeli troops looting houses and shops, including Rafeh secondary school and the hospital and clinic. The witness also stated that he had seen Israeli forces loading their plunder into military vehicles.
245. Mr. Saad Mohammed Abraham (RT.21) stated that as soon as they entered Rafah, the Israeli troops plundered the shops in the main street. Israeli soldiers gave small items to Arab children and photographed them with the shops in the background. He also saw cases of looting by Israelis in Gaza.
246. Mr. Abdallah Gibril Abid (RT.21) stated that his house was looted by the Israelis, in Gaza on 7 February 1968.
247. Mrs. Maha El-Zirbawi (RT.20) testified that Israeli troops had entered her family’s apartment in El-Arish and they had robbed it of everything of value.
248. Mr. Ismail Ahmed Zikri (RT.20) was arrested on 13 July 1967. When he was released from prison after fifty-three days he found that his house had been completely looted.
249. Mr. Kamel El-Hourani (RT.20) testified that on 16 June 1967, his house which they were searching for him was looted by Israeli troops.
250. Mr. Mohammed El-Attar (RT.19) stated that in the Gaza Strip he saw Israeli troops looting freely whenever they searched houses and Bedouin tents on the pretext of searching for arms or soldiers.
251. Witness E (RT.19 stated that her house was looted by Israelis on 8 June 1967.
252. Acts of looting were also mentioned in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan on 5 July 1967 (S/8033). This letter refers to acts of looting of banks and stores by Israelis in Jerusalem, Nablus, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah and Biteh. These allegations were replied to by the Permanent Representative of Israel on 12 July 1967 (S/8055/Rev.1). The letter states:
“The allegations contained in that letter are unfounded.
“The banks on the west bank of the Jordan had in fact averaged a 10 per cent liquidity, and had they been permitted to open for normal banking business, they would have automatically become bankrupt. It has been established that the two main reasons for this low level of liquidity were:
“(a) An extremely high ratio of loans to deposits;
“(b) Substantial transference of deposits to the bank’s head offices in Amman.
“Immediate resumption of normal banking activities is conditional upon the authorization by the Jordanian Government of the transfer of deposits back to branches on the west bank. Alternatively, resumption of Jordanian banking activities will depend on the rate of maturity and collection of outstanding loans.
“Far from affecting any withdrawals from the west bank, the Government of Israel has authorized the opening of branches of Israel banks in eight townships on the west bank, with a view to encouraging a flow of capital designed to stimulate economic activity.
“Most commercial shops are open. They have ample stocks. A number of owners who closed their shops and crossed to the east of the Jordan had previously transferred their stocks to others.
“It is evident from the facts stated above that there are no grounds to the Jordanian letter.”
Destruction of property as a reprisal
253. Article 33 prohibits, among other things, reprisals against protected persons and their property.
254. In the analysis of allegations concerning the physical safeguard of protected persons and those concerning the property of protected persons, reference is made to allegations of mistreatment of person and property by way of reprisal. The attention of the Special Working Group was drawn to a report appearing in
The New York Times
on 11 November 1969 (A/C.3/619). This report states
“Israeli authorities recently began demolishing homes of Arabs who had been unco-operative in investigations of terrorism or who had declined to come forward with information. Previously demolition was limited to the homes of those actively engaged in terrorism.”
255. The following are some witnesses who had testified that they or their property suffered in acts of Israelis specifically designated as reprisals.
256. Abdallah Gibril Abid (RT.21) stated that his house and those of eighteen other detainees from Gaza were demolished by the Israelis. He stated that he had not been charged nor sentenced; he had been detained for refusing to go back to teaching. He left the Gaza Strip for Cairo on 16 September 1968.
257. Mohammed Rabi’ el-Sherif (RT.19) testified that his house was demolished while he was in prison in el-Arish. His family had been dispersed and he had been rendered destitute.
258. Witness E (RT.19) stated that her house was dynamited by Israeli troops because she had not divulged her husband’s whereabouts to them.
259. Mohammed El-Attar (RT.19) testified that in Khan Younis houses were blown up which belonged to persons who denied knowledge of the “fedayeen”.
260. The Special Working Group also took note of documents S/9501, S/9506, S/9507 and S/9511 in so far as they relate to reprisals.
261. The representative of Jordan drew attention to a report appearing in the British newspaper
on 28 October 1969, by means of a letter dated 10 November 1969. The letter and the report entitled “Grim Reports of Repression in Israel-occupied Lands” by E.C. Hodgkin, appear as document S/9501. The report refers
to the destruction of the village of Halhul, north of Hebron, by Israeli forces in reprisal for harbouring a guerrilla fighter. Documents S/9506 and S/9507 containing letters from the representatives of Israel and Jordan, respectively, make reference to the subsequent correspondence appearing also in
refuting and endorsing the report of Mr. Hodgkin.
262. In his letter dated 25 November 1969, the representative of Jordan refers to an article appearing in the British newspaper
on 23 November 1969 entitled “Eye-witness in Gaza”. According to an editor’s note preceding it, the article is based on a “long and detailed statement which he (an Israeli citizen) gave us (
) and to which he swore on oath”. This report speaks,
, of reprisals in Gaza against villages and civilians (see paragraphs 253-256 above).
Relevant articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention
263. These articles are as follows”
“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
“Pillage is prohibited.
“Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”
Eviction and deportation of protected Persons and the prohibition of transfer Population of the occupying Power to the occupied territories
264. Sheikh Abdul Hamid Sayeh (RT.11) testified that he was expelled from Jerusalem on 23 September 1967. He was told that he was being expelled for reasons of security. He stated that he believed that he was expelled because he had refused to collaborate with the Israeli authorities. Sheikh Sayeh is the [Chief of the religious courts] of Jerusalem (pp.61-66).
265. Bishop Simaan (RT.12) referred to statements which had been made to Monsignor Rodain, head of
(an emissary of the Holy See), at the Allenby Bridge by refugees. These refugees had told Mgr. Rodain
that they had been made to sign papers stating that they agreed to leave the West Bank and that if they returned they could be sent to gaol for fifteen years (p.3-5).
266. Witness (RT.13) stated that she had been deported. The witness had participated in a sit-down strike at the Holy Sepulchre.
267. Major Derek Cooper (RT.13) testified that he was convinced that the Israelis intended to move in instead of the Arabs as the latter were made to leave and not allowed to return (p.76-80).
268. Dr. Salah Anabtawi (RT.14) stated that he had been deported against his will by the Israeli authorities for no apparent reason. He came from Nablus and he was deported on 23 October 1968. Dr. Anabtawi is a pediatrician by profession. He stated that professionals and leaders were being deported in order to deprive the Arab people of their leadership and thus erode their morale and eventually force them to leave the occupied zones.
269. The expulsion of Dr. Anabtawi, among others, is referred to in a letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan of 13 December 1968 (S/8932). This letter concerns the question of deportation of leading figures of the occupied areas, in this case the West Bank. This question is also referred to in letters of the Permanent Representative of Jordan of 4 August 1967 (S/8110) referring to Mr. Anwar El-Khatib, Governor of Jerusalem, Dr. Daoud Husseini, former Member of parliament, Add El-Muhsen Abu Mizer, a lawyer, Dr. Subhi Ghousheh and Amir Ghousheh, two brothers and prominent citizens, of 22 December 1967 (S/8311) referring to Abraham Bakir and Kamal Nastier, two leaders, of 7 March 1968 (S/8445) referring to Mr. Ruhi el-Khatib, Mayor of Jerusalem, and of 13 December 1968 (S/8932) referring to Dr. Anabtawi, Mr. Mosa Jayousi, lawyer, R. Shahin and A.O. Hijjawi from Nablus, Dr. Moussa Abu Ghoush, Dr. Wahkeh and Y. Ebeidi from Ramallah, Mohammed Tawfiq Haj Hassan, Deputy Major, Messrs. A.S. Rabbaa’ and F.S. Nera’i, from Jenin, Mohammed F. Taher from Ja’bed, R.A. Hamid from Tulkarm and Mohammed Khaled Abdo from Jericho. The contents of document S/8311 were referred to in a letter of the Permanent Representative of Israel of 2 January 1968 (S/8322). In this letter it is stated:
“The action concerning Abraham Bakir and Kamal Nastier was taken by Israeli authorities in pursuance of their duty to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the population of the area concerned.”
270. The contents of document S/8445 were referred to in a letter of the Permanent Representative of Israel of 11 March 1968(S/8452). In this letter it is stated:
“The concern of the Government of Jordan that the activities of Mr. Rouhi El-Khatib, a Jordanian national, in Jerusalem have been stopped is understandable. Mr. El-Khatib, an appointee of the Jordanian Government, had been an agent for the Government in promoting tensions and public unrest behind the cease-fire lines between Jordan and Israel.
“After the hostilities had ended he did not cease his attempts at incitement. He maintained contact with the Jordanian Government and acted as intermediary for the transmission of directives and instructions from Amman and for the illegal transfer and distribution of funds for the purpose of promoting breaches of public order. Realizing that he failed to enjoy public support, he increasingly tried to revert to illicit pressure and threats against local inhabitants.
“Owing to these activities and the threats to public order and security which they posed, he was ordered in accordance with the Defence Emergency Regulations of 1945 to leave and cross the cease-fire line to Jordan.”
271. More allegations of harassment of leading figures in the occupied areas were made in the letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan dated 9 December 1968 (S/8923) which refers to: (a) the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of Mrs. Zaidah El-Khatib (wife of Mr. Rouhi El-Khatib) in Ramlah prison, (b) the imprisonment of Mrs. Maleha Al-Husseini, a prominent leader of women’s organizations in Jerusalem, and (c) Mr. Nazeeh Kurah, a teacher who was sentenced to three years imprisonment for allegedly opposing Israeli changes in the school curriculum.
272. Mr. Taysir Nabulsi (RT.14), an advocate, stated that he had been deported on 6 January 1969. In his expulsion order, he stated, it was alleged that he was responsible for a school strike and a student demonstration in Nablus. He was arrested, kept three hours in gaol without being questioned and then deported.
273. Mr. Abraham Mustafa Abraham (RT.14) stated that he and the whole population of Emmaus, the village where he was Muktar, had been forcibly evicted from their homes and sent away from their village by the Israelis.
274. Sister Marie Therese Lacaze (RT.14) stated that civilians in the village of Qalqilyah had been put on buses and taken away.
Some others had to walk to Nablus (27 miles away) in order to obtain food. The witness also stated that she had seen the expulsion of 400 Arab families from near the Wailing Wall.
275. Referring to De’ish Refugee Camp, Sister Marie Therese added that the Israeli troops had ordered the refugees “to go to Hussein”.
276. Loudhailers were used in Bethlehem to encourage the civilians to flee to Jericho “if [they] wished to save [their] lives”. The use of loudhailers to encourage civilians to leave their homes is referred to also by other witnesses, among them Sami Ouieda (RT.6) and Badih El-Abouie (RT.6). It is also referred to in letters of the Permanent Representative to Jordan (S/7975), and of the Permanent Representative of Tunisia (S/7974), both of 12 June 1967.
277. Saleh Nazhani (RT.15) testified that the population of his whole village (Nosierat) was forcibly taken away on trucks to the Allenby Bridge. This took place on 3 December 1967. Earlier on 30 November 1967, the Israelis had ordered the population out but they had refused.
278. The matter of the expulsion of the Noseriat tribe was brought to the attention of the Security Council and the General Assembly by the Permanent Representative of Jordan on 8 December 1967 (S/8290). The Permanent Representative of Israel referred to this matter is a letter dated 12 December 1967 (S/8295). In this letter it is stated:
“The allegation that members of the Nuwaseirat tribe have been forced to cross to the east bank of the Jordan is false. The facts are as follows. This is a small tribe of bedouin nomads that has no fixed habitation but lives in tent encampments and normally moves between the western and eastern sides of the Jordan River in the Jericho area. In this locality there have been frequent illegal infiltrations across the river and terrorist activities by persons penetrating from Jordanian territory on the east bank.
“For security reasons it became necessary to proclaim the area a restricted area. In their desire to alleviate unnecessary suffering, the Israel authorities approached the chief of the tribe and proposed an agreed relocation elsewhere. A new site for the encampment was agreed upon while maintaining access to the former grazing grounds. At the same time approximately 150 members of the tribe voluntarily chose to cross to the east bank and written declarations of this willingness were signed by these persons at the Allenby Bridge. Those bedouin who crossed to the east bank were accepted without any reservations by the Jordanian authorities, who awaited them a few yards away. The crossing was openly and freely conducted and there was no coercion whatsoever.”
279. Sheikh Abu Rashed (RT.16) stated that he was the leader of 2,000 Rawachdi tribesmen. He was deported after ten months in prison. He was arrested on 15 October 1968 for having urged the Muktars to complain to the ICRC and to UNRWA. The witness said that he was, during this period, under preventive arrest and therefore was not brought to trial.
280. Mr.Abdulgnani Shik (RT.8) testified that on 12 June 1967 the Israeli troops ordered all the villagers out of Keshneya within fifteen minutes (pp 21-25).
281. Mr. Mohammed Gowaa El-Arour (RT.8) stated that the inhabitants of the village of Razzaniya were ordered out of their homes, the Israelis fired some shots in the air, took away twelve youths - released two months later - and they were not allowed to return to their village.
282. According to Mr. Mohammed Cesium Daoud (RT.8), the whole population of his village in occupied Syria was deported by the Israelis on 15 June 1969 (p.71).
283. Mr. Mohammed Moheiddine Sleek (RT.8) said that in Quneitra, conditions were rendered such by the Israelis that the civilians had no choice but to leave for Syria (p.101).
284. Mr. Abraham Ghawdjel (RT.8) testified that he had been forcibly deported from his village in the Quneitra region. This took place in 1968. The witness also stated that most villagers had been forced to leave by 1968 and that only one or two persons had remained in the village (p.56).
285. Mr. Muneef Ramadan (RT.9) said that six days after occupation the Israelis ordered all the inhabitants of his village Zaaour to leave for another village within one hour. They were told to cross into unoccupied Syria and when he as Muktar protested they were forced to do so (pp. 16-20).
286. Mrs. Nimet Mahmoud Saleh (RT.9) stated that the inhabitants of her village, Tel Awra in the Bteika Zone, were forcibly evicted from the village and taken to the combat line after a five-day march (p.46).
287. Mr. Hussein Khaled Naajil (RT.9) testified that three days after occupation the villagers were forcibly evicted. The date was 15 June 1967 (p.61).
288. Mr. Mahmoud Khairallah (RT.9) a baker from Quneitra, stated that after their occupation, the Osraelis rendered the food situation serious and therefore most people who had remained there were forced to leave the town and go to unoccupied Syria; the Israelis provided transportation for them and for their property. (P.71).
289. Mr. Mohammed Abdel Meguid (RT.9) from Ein Ziwan near Quneitra, testified that on 23 June 1967, after ten days of occupation, the inhabitants of the village were forced to leave for Syria (p.81).
290. According to Mr. Tayyim El Ghuzzi (TY.9), the population of Kherba was repeatedly told by the Israelis to leave this village and go to unoccupied Syria. The village population was eventually forced to the cease-fire line on 13 June 1967. The witness also stated that he would not return to his village unless it was under the auspices of the United Nations; he would not return under an Israeli régime (p.96).
291. Mr. Hamdi El-Khalily (RT.21), a lawyer from El-Arish, stated that in the Gaza Central Prison, the Israelis bargained with the detainees daily during interrogation to leave the area. The Israelis promised freedom to the detainees and permission to take all their belongings, including their money, to the East Bank. He also stated that he felt that, in many cases, imprisonment was designed to produce an atmosphere of terror and cause people to leave.
292. Sheikh Mohammed Hemeid (RT.20) testified that his tribe had been attacked by Israeli troops and they were forced to leave their village in the Zodba zone near Bar el-Add; they were threatened with death unless they left. The witness had fled for Port Said.
293. Mr. Ismail Ahmed Zikri (RT.20) stated that on 9 February 1969 he was told by an Israeli officer to leave El-Arish immediately for the East Bank.
294. According to Witness E (RT.19), she had been asked to leave for the East Bank from Gaza since she was considered a security threat. She had been a headmistress in Gaza and her husband was imprisoned for allegedly belonging to the fedayeen.
295. Sheikh Ek-Hersh (RT.19) testified that the Israelis had ordered him to proceed to Egypt. He and his family were pursued by helicopter and shot at as they fled (Bar el-Add).
296. Souhir Moussa Abraham (RT.19) stated that the Israelis had ordered the people of Bar el-Add to go to Egypt.
297. Nastier Salem Salama (RT.19), village Chief of Bar el-Add, said that the whole population of his village was forcibly deported to Egypt by the Israelis.
298. Sheikh Salim Ally el Hersh (RT.17), chief of tribe in the Rabat District from Bar el Add region, testified that when the Israeli troops had entered the village they forced all the inhabitants to leave their houses. After they had evacuated their houses they were accused of hiding weapons which had been left there by the Egyptian army and therefore they were driven out of the village. The Israelis had pursued them with helicopters as far as the mountains, where they had landed and again ordered them to produce the arms which they had concealed. He had then requested permission to return home, but the Israelis had said that anyone who tried to return would be shot. The villagers had suffered greatly from hunger and thirst while proceeding on foot towards the lakes. The witness himself had remained in the rear and had continued to request permission to return to his shop, but the Israelis had replied that he had to go to President Nastier. The witness testified that between 180 and 200 families had been expelled, and that not more than forty or sixty persons still remained in the village. The witness also stated that during its retreat the Egyptian army had passed through his village, but he was prepared to swear by God and his honour that no arms had been left there.
299. Mrs. Watfa Hassan Amar (RT.17) testified that the Israeli army had burned down her house in Roumana Village and driven them away, firing on them constantly. The survivors had walked all the way to Port Said.
300. Miss Aisha Vali Ghazy (RT.18), eighteen years old, testified that the surviving members of her family had been driven away by the Israelis.
301. Mrs. Fatma Mahmoud Abdallah (RT.18) testified that the surviving members of her family had been expelled to Port Said.
302. Sheikh Solomon Moussa Abraham (RT.17), chief of the El Rawayeh Tribe from Beir el Add in the Bteiha Zone in the Sinai Region, testified that the Israeli forces re-entered his village two weeks after the commencement of hostilities. After the killing of some members of his tribe by machine-gun fire the Israelis had forced the surviving inhabitants to leave the village and had ordered them to proceed to Egypt. They had been pursued by Israeli helicopters whose crews had caught up with them, landed and forced them to surrender all their valuables. They had then continued in the direction of the plains, through the marshes, until they had reached the Port Said Region.
303. Salem Gowaa Ghorab (RT.17), chief of the Dawaghera Tribe of the Bar el Add Region of Mousfig testified that after the killing of some men of his tribe, the imprisonment of others and the destruction and looting of houses of his village the rest of his tribe had fled. After walking for four consecutive nights, the survivors had crossed the lake and reached Port Said. The wife of the witness had suffered a nervous breakdown and had died after her arrival in Egypt.
304. Mrs. Narges El Sayed Abraham (RT.17) testified that after the killing of her husband and mistreatment of her seven year old son by the Israelis the witness, her son had her three daughters had been forced to leave the house and had not been allowed to take any of their clothes and possessions with them. They had then crossed the Canal to West Qantara where her son’s injuries had been attended by the Egyptians.
305. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic in a telegram dated 21 June 1967 (S/8007) stated that Israel was expelling several hundred Palestinians through El-Kantara. This was reiterated in a telegram dated 25 June 1967 (S/8017) where it was reported that more mass expulsions of Palestinians had taken place bringing the total to 2,402 persons expelled within five days.
306. The Permanent Representative of Israel referred to these allegations in a letter dated 27 June 1967 (S/8019) wherein it is stated:
“On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to refer to the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic of 21 June 1967 [S/8007] alleging expulsion of civilians through the cease-fire line at El Kantara.
“The representative of the United Arab Republic repeated those allegations at the 1533rd plenary meeting of the General Assembly of 23 June 1967, and at the 1534th meeting, of the same date, I made the following reply:
‘Prisoners of war are held in a camp at the outskirts of El Kantara. As part of Israel’s policy to return the prisoners of war to Egypt, arrangements have been made with the Egyptian authorities on the opposite bank of the Canal for them to ferry groups of released prisoners from the Israel line to the west bank of the Canal.
‘These prisoners of war are freely accepted by the competent Egyptian authorities and transferred by them to Egyptian territory. No complaints have been received on the spot that persons other than prisoners of war have been sent to Egypt through El Kantara.
‘If there were Palestinians among the prisoners of war they apparently belonged to the military units of the so-called Palestine Liberation Army, which was controlled by the Egyptian army and participated in the hostilities against Israel.
‘Be that as it may, the transfer of prisoners of war at El Kantara is being carried out with the free co-operation of the Egyptian authorities. The representatives of the International Red Cross have publicly expressed their satisfaction and appreciation at the manner in which Egyptian prisoners of war have been cared for and repatriated by Israel.’
“As in the case of earlier communications from the representatives of the United Arab Republic (S/7988 and S/7993), the statements contained in the letter of 21 June 1967 are inconsistent with the facts. That letter must therefore be considered as one further attempt to mislead its readers.”
307. In a letter dated 10 August 1967 (S/8117) the representative of Jordan states that on 26 July 1967, eighty-five inhabitants of the West Bank were expelled as were another seventy-five on 27 July 1967.
308. The representative of the United Arab Republic in a letter dated 31 January 1968 (S/8373) mentioned that as of 7 November 1967, 100 to 300 persons a day, mostly from the Gaza Strip, still crossed to east Jordan. The letter adds that these persons stated that they were coerced by the Israelis into leaving their homes. Intimidation, shooting, terror, demolition of houses at random and house-to-house searches were among the methods used by the Israelis to drive the Arabs out. Further reports of intimidation of Arabs were made in newspaper articles appearing in
of 26 January 1968 by Michael Adams and in
of 28 January 1968 by Irene Beeson. These reports were communicated to the Secretary-General as annexes to a letter from the representative of the United Arab Republic dated 2 February 1968 (S/8380).
309. The representative of the United Arab Republic made reference to forced deportation of Arabs from Gaza in a letter dated 16 May 1968 (S/8588). By February 1968, it is stated, approximately 85,000 Arabs were forced to leave the Gaza Strip for the East Bank of the Jordan. It is also stated that Arabs were being forced to leave the Gaza Strip at rates varying between 3,000 to 4,000 per week. These allegations were denied in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel dated 26 May 1968 (S/8596).
310. The representative of Jordan, in letters of 25 July 1968 (S/8691), 29 July 1968 (S/8698) and 5 August 1968 (S/8722) reported that the Israeli authorities intended to deport 50,000 Palestinians from Al Jabaliah refugee camp in Gaza. The representative of Israel denied this claim in letters dated 30 July 1968 (S/8700) and 31 July 1968 (S/8701).
311. In a letter dated 26 June 1969 (S/9284) the representative of Jordan mentioned the expulsion of nine Jordanian citizens to the East Bank of Jordan.
312. In his testimony Mr. Ruhi Khatib (RT.12) stated that Israel was building a number of housing projects in occupied Jerusalem and around it, to house 40,000 Jewish immigrants to live in place of Arabs, both inside and outside the city walls (p.76).
313. Mr. Hamid El-Khalili (RT.21) said that Israeli families were being installed in the Nahal Sina Zone of Sinai.
314. Allegations of transfer of Israelis to the occupied areas are also contained in letters of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on 3 July 1968 (S/8666, S/8667), regarding the settlement of Israeli Jews in occupied Jerusalem. The same allegation was also made in a letter of 3 June 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/8609) with regard to transfer of Israeli Jews ot Al-Khalil (Hebron). The contents of this letter are referred to in a letter of the Permanent Representative of Israel on 7 June 1968 (S/8626) where it is stated:
“This letter magnifies and distorts the matter in question.
“A small group of pious Jews and their families have on their own spontaneous initiative taken up residence in Hebron, a town with venerable Jewish historical and religious associations.
“There is no good reason why their neighbours should not live on peaceful and amicable terms with them and so help to heal the tragic memories of the massacre of Hebron Jews in 1929".
315. In a letter dated 3 October 1967 (S/8178) the representative of Syria states that the destruction of the villages of Kafr El-Mâ and El-Hurriah is part of plans to move new settlers and colonies to that area. For this purpose, the letter refers to a report in
The New York Times
of 25 September 1967 which mentions plans by Israel to settle territories seized during the June 1967 hostilities.
316. In another letter dated 18 April 1968 (S/8559) the representative of Syria mentions the fact that Israeli “Nahal” colonies were being established in the occupied areas.
317. The representative of Israel, in a letter dated 24 April 1968 (S/8558) stated that the allegations contained in document S/8550 were unfounded. Referring to the “Nahal” settlements, the representative of Israel stated that this was a corps, a military unit of the Israel Defence Forces, employed in assisting to ensure the security of the area and in maintaining the cease-fire. The true nature of the “Nahal” settlements is again discussed in a letter of the representative of Syria dated 18 June 1968 (S/8643) and the reply to it by the representative of Israel dated 27 June 1968 (S/8654).
318. The representative of Syria, in a letter of 17 April 1969 (S/9164) refers to the destruction of houses in Quneitra, Abizetun, Tel-Esseqi, Razzaniya and Khan El-Joukhadar mentioned in documents S/9139 and S/9150 and alleges that this destruction, together with other evidence such as newspaper reports including reports of pronouncements by Israeli Ministers quoted in document S/9164, demonstrate the intention of Israel to settle areas occupied by it as a result of the hostilities of June 1967.
319. The question of transfer of population of the occupying Power to the occupied territory was raised also in letters of the representative of Jordan dated 26 June 1969 (S/9284) referring to legislation by Israel (Administrative Regulation Law, 1968) aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, and 2 July 1969 (S/9303), drawing attention to photographs allegedly showing constructions of Israeli settlements in occupied Jerusalem, on confiscated Arab land.
320. The letter of the representative of Syria dated 30 September 1969 (S/9459) refers to the continued demolition of Arab buildings and villages in occupied Syrian territory and the eviction of Israeli settlements for the purpose of colonizing the occupied areas. The letter also refers to some passages from an article appearing in the
Christian Science Monitor
on 23 September 1969 by Trudy Rubin, entitled “Israeli Border Life - Golan Cliffs Along Syrian Border Key to Territorial Desires”. The article also refers to the settlement of the occupied Syrian territory by Israel. An annex to the letter shows a list of ten Israeli settlements allegedly built on sites of partially or totally demolished Syrian villages and in other locations in occupied Syria, as follows:
Name of Settlement
Date of establishment
14 August 1967
5 November 1967
10 March 1968
5 May 1968
Most buildings of Arab El-’Al were demolished
7 July 1968
8 August 1968
Most buildings demolished
Most buildings demolished
28 December 1968
29 December 1968
5 May 1969
321. Article 49 of the Convention, relevant to the evidence analyzed in section D, reads as follows:
“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.”
Allegations regarding the guarantees of the institutions and Government of occupied territories (article 54)
322. Sheikh Abdul Hamid Sayeh (RT.11) testified that, as chief of the religious courts, he had been ordered by the Israeli authorities that the religious courts in occupied Jerusalem were not to apply Muslim religious law any longer but to apply instead Israeli law (p.72-75).
323. Mr. Saad Mohammed Abraham (RT.21) stated that his colleagues in the Police Force in Gaza who had refused to co-operate with the Israelis had been sentenced to periods of from five to eleven years imprisonment.
324. Mr. Abdalla Gibril Abid (RT.21) said that he was a teacher and he had refused to go back to teach in Gaza when the Israelis had decided to reopen the schools. He was therefore imprisoned for three days and beaten constantly.
325. Mr. Kamel El-Harouni (RT.20) who was Director of the Secretariat in the Education Offices in Gaza (El-Arish) testified that he was offered good conditions if he co-operated with the Israelis in calling teachers to a meeting. He had not co-operated and subsequently he was searched for by the Israeli troops on 28 September 1967. He therefore left El-Arish 12 October 1967 until when he was still in hiding.
326. Article 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, relevant to the evidence analyzed in section E, reads as follows:
“The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.
“This prohibition does not prejudice the application of the second paragraph of Article 51.
It does not affect the right of the Occupying Power to remove public officials from their posts.”
Allegations regarding the non-observance of implementation
of the Convention (article 30)
327. Mr. Mohammed Kassim Daoud (Rt.8) stated that there was no international relief agency who could safeguard the rights of civilians. The only appeal available was with the Military Commander. The witness stated that there was no point in complaining to the very person who was persecuting the civilians (p.82-85).
328. Witness (RT.19) testified that she was specifically forbidden to report to the Red Cross representatives on her husband’s torture in Nablus Prison at the hands of the Israelis. The witness stated that she was threatened with being killed together with her children if she complained to the Red Cross.
329. Miss Aisha Vati Ghazy (RT.18) testified that she had not been allowed to see the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross since the signs of beating were still apparent on her. Subsequently, however, she had managed to see him.
330. The relevant article of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides:
“Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to the Protecting Powers, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Society of the country where they may be, as well as to any organization that might assist them.
“These several organizations shall be granted all facilities for that purpose by the authorities, within the bounds set by military or security considerations.
“Apart from the visits of the delegates of the Protecting Powers and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, provided for by Article 143, the Detaining or Occupying Powers shall facilitate as much as possible visits to protected persons by the representatives of other organizations whose object is to give spiritual aid or material relief to such persons.”
Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (Geneva International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958), p.301.
Government of Palestine. Ordinances, regulations, rules, orders and notices
(Jerusalem, Government Printing Press, 1947).
Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
(Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958), pp. 306-307.
/ This chapter merely summarizes here evidence received by the Working Group. The conclusions which the Working Group has reached on the basis of this evidence are found in chapter IV of this report.
/ Reference is to documents series E/CN.4/AC.26/RT. (English text), which for purposes of brevity is cited as RT.
/ Concerning the legal situation in the occupied territories, see chapter II.
/ For further information regarding destruction of houses in Jerusalem, see annexes.
/ Concerning the legal situation in the occupied territories, see chapter II.
/ The expulsion of the civilians from Qalqilyah is also mentioned in the letter from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/8004) of 21 June 1967:
“No fewer than 12,000 people of the above-mentioned town are now living in the open air and in olive groves without food, shelter or clothes.
“The inhabitants of Qalqilyah beseeched in the military governor of Nablus and requested permission to return to their town to secure some of their belongings. Their request was not granted.
“Only yesterday five bus loads of the inhabitants of this town were driven into the east bank of the Jordan, thus adding to the 150,000 refugees who have already been forced to leave the occupied territory.”
This letter is referred to in another one from the Permanent Representative of Israel (S/8013) of 23 June 1967 which states:
“The village of Qalqilyah was one of the concentration points of this general attack. Large numbers of troops and artillery were deployed in and around the village. Commencing on 5 June, heavy and continuous fire was opened from Qalqilyah and its environs on Israeli villages, and el Aviv itself was shelled from Qalqilyah.
“As part of this aggression, the inhabitants of Qalqilyah voluntarily evacuated the village before it was occupied by Israel forces - doubtless out of a sense of guilt for the prolonged shelling in which they had assisted.
“The village itself ceased to be a civilian and became a military outpost for the Jordanian units, which carried on the war from it. In the course of the battle of 6 June between units of the Jordanian and Israeli army, a large number of houses in which Jordanian soldiers had established themselves were damaged. Since the end of the battle, no further buildings have been destroyed.
“I wish to point out that near Qalqilyah is the town of Tulkarm. There was no fighting in that town and it is undamaged. Its population remains there and life continues normally.”
/ The commentary to the Fourth Convention (Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958), p.307, states:
The reference to Article 51 related not only to the list of different types of work, but also to the conditions and safeguards contained in that Article, in particular the prohibition on the use of compulsion to make protected persons take part in military operations. This is particularly important in the case of police officers, who cannot under any circumstances be required to participate in measures aimed at opposing legitimate belligerent acts, whether committed by armed forces hostile to the Occupying Power, by corps of volunteers or by organized resistance movements. On the other hand, it would certainly appear that the Occupying Power is entitled to require the local police to take part in tracing and punishing hostile acts commited under circumstances other than those laid down in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Such acts may in fact be regarded as offences under common law, whatever ideas may have inspired their authors, and the occupation authorities, being responsible for maintaining law and order, are within their rights in claiming the co-operation of the police.