Report: Israel continues to conduct human rights violations against Palestinians

Thursday December 20, 2007 16:06 by Ghassan Bannoura - IMEMC News

The Adalah Human rights group that is based in Israel has recently issued a report presenting a selection of the cases it has worked on during the year in which it challenged some of Israel’s most blatant violations of human rights against the Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

Adalah is an independent human rights organization, registered in Israel. It is a non-profit, non-governmental, and non-partisan legal center. Established in November 1996, it serves Arab citizens of Israel, which make up over one million people or close to 20% of the population.

Adalah ("Justice" in Arabic) works to protect human rights in general and the rights of the Arab minority in particular. Hear is the full report: Splitting Families: The Ban on Family Unification Law Since May 2002, the Tbilah family has been living in a state of fear of future separation. Ranin, from Shafa’amr in Israel, married Hatem Tbilah, originally from Nablus in the occupied West Bank. Later they had two children, Asaleh and Dima.

They are living in fear because of the Israeli government’s policy of banning family unification for Palestinians. This policy was enshrined in law by the Knesset in 2003. The law bans the unification of families in Israel in which one spouse is a citizen of Israel and the other is a Palestinian from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The Israeli Supreme Court decided in May 2006 to uphold what Adalah calls a 'racist' law, thereby rejecting Adalah’s petition challenging the constitutionality of the law.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to protect their basic right to family life, the Tbilahs and thousands of other families like them now face the imminent break up of their families.

In March 2007, the Knesset expanded the scope of this law and the duration of its applicability until the end of July 2008. The new law not only prevents citizens of Israel married to Palestinians from the OPT from living together as a family in Israel, but also bans residents or citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon, legally defined as ‘enemy states’, from doing so. Adalah filed a petition against this new law in May 2007, demanding its cancellation.

Adalah argued that the law is racially discriminatory as it bars certain “non-citizen” individuals from family unification solely on the basis of their nationality, and that this exclusion has no parallel in any democratic nation. Adalah further argued that in addition to perpetuating violations of the right to dignity, privacy, equality and family life, the new law prevents Arab citizens of Israel from having contact with their families and members of the Arab nation and the Palestinian people. This is an extremely dangerous matter as the Arabs in Israel are not an immigrant group but an indigenous national minority.

Home Demolitions, Evacuations and Forced Relocations: Dispossessing and Displacing the Arab Bedouin in the ‘Unrecognized Villages’ Around 1,000 Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel belonging to the Abu al-Qi’an tribe live in Atir-Umm al-Hieran, an ‘unrecognized village’ located in the Naqab (Negev) desert. After the establishment of the state in 1948, the military government ordered the members of the tribe to leave their ancestral lands in Wadi Zuballa, which the state transferred to a kibbutz for use solely by Jewish Israelis. The tribe was moved to various locations and in 1956 was forced to relocate to Atir-Umm al-Hieran.

Despite having relocated them, however, the state did not officially recognize the village and as a result its inhabitants receive little-to-no basic services, including electricity, water, telephone lines, or education and health facilities.

There are dozens of Arab Bedouin ‘unrecognized villages’, referred to by the state as ‘illegal clusters’, in the Naqab. The state is seeking their direct, collective re-location from their land. In October 2007, Adalah and Bimkom submitted an objection to the National Council for Planning and Building on behalf of 82 people from Atir-Umm el-Hieran, seeking the revision of the master plan for metropolitan Beer el-Sabe (Beer Sheva).

The objectors' demands include the recognition of the village and preparation of a master plan for it and the drafting of a plan for building infrastructure in the village. The master plan does not include suitable housing solutions for the Arab Bedouin of the Naqab in general, and for the residents of Atir-Umm al-Hieran in particular. Far from it: according to the master plan, a new community named Hiran – designated exclusively for Jewish citizens – will be constructed on most of the village’s land.

A report by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) identifies a number of ‘special problems’ that may affect the planning and establishment of Hiran, among them the Arab Bedouin inhabitants of the area. Two other new Jewish communities are also planned for the area. In order to establish these three new Jewish communities, the state is using multiple means and procedures to evacuate the entire Arab Bedouin population of Atir-Umm al-Hieran, including filing lawsuits to evict them and requests for demolition orders against their homes to the courts.

Despite court orders to freeze the home demolitions requested by Adalah, the ILA demolished some houses in June 2007 leaving many families homeless. Adalah is also representing village residents in lawsuits challenging all these orders, and is demanding an investigation and disciplinary proceedings against those responsible for the illegal demolitions.

In mid-June 2007, after Hamas seized control of Gaza, Israel closed the Karni crossing, which is a vital passageway for the movement of essential foods and goods to and from Gaza. Under international law Israel still occupies Gaza – even after the ‘Disengagement’ in 2005 – because it still exercises effective control over the lives of the residents of Gaza and the borders that link Gaza to the outside world.

Adalah accuses Israel of being in violation of its duties to protect the safety and security of the residents of Gaza, due to the closure of Karni and all other crossings. In a petition filed by Adalah, Al Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights-Gaza to the Supreme Court in June demanding the immediate reopening of the crossing, Adalah argued that the closure of Karni and not supplying basic foodstuffs and other essential provisions to the residents of Gaza violates their rights to life, health and to an adequate standard of living.

Adalah further argued that Israel’s actions amount to collective punishment. However, the court was unconvinced that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and advised the petitioners in October 2007 to withdraw the petition. By early September 2007, the Israeli government had decided to further reduce the supplies of fuel and electricity it provides to Gaza.

As Israel is not allowing the Palestinians to obtain fuel and electricity from an alternative source, these cuts also constitute collective punishment and not economic sanctions against a ‘hostile entity’, as Israel claims.

In October, Adalah and Gisha, on behalf of ten Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, petitioned the Supreme Court demanding an injunction to prevent the state from disrupting the supply of electricity and fuel to Gaza. The petitioners argued that the reduction in fuel supplies has already caused extensive damage to vital systems like water wells, and as a result around 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from disrupted water supplies. In addition, cutting electricity will impair the operation of hospitals and other vital services, particularly since Gaza was left completely reliant on Israel for power after Israel destroyed all six transformers in Gaza's only power plant in June 2006.

The petitioners also strongly contested the state’s claim that it is only bound to safeguard “a minimal humanitarian situation” in Gaza, a term that does not exist in international law. On 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court approved the government’s decision to cut fuel supplies to Gaza. The court has temporarily frozen cuts to the electricity pending receipt of information by the state on the effects of the plan on the Palestinian population in Gaza.

In Adalah’s view, the court’s ruling violates the basic principles of international humanitarian law, which prohibit using civilians for political purposes and bans collective punishment. Jewish National Fund Excludes Arab Citizens from 13% of ‘Israel Lands’ In the pre-state era, institutions such as the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) pursued the project of “land redemption” in order to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

After the establishment of the state in 1948, Israel transferred state-acquired properties and land development functions to these organizations for exclusive use by Jewish people, thereby discriminating against Palestinians who remained and became citizens of the state. The Israel Land Administration (ILA) manages all state lands, which comprise over 93% of the total area in the state, including JNF-owned land since 1961.

Thus, Palestinian citizens of Israel are completely excluded from approximately 13% of “Israel Lands,” or 2.5 million dunams, owned by the JNF. In 2004 Adalah petitioned the Supreme Court demanding the cancellation of an ILA policy which permits and conducts the marketing and allocation of JNF lands through bids open only to Jews.

In response to this petition and a further petition filed against the ILA's policy by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the JNF declared that its loyalty is only to the Jewish people and not the Israeli general public, and that it operates solely for the benefit of Jewish citizens.

However, while the JNF claims to have purchased the lands in its ownership using money donated by Jews from around the world in order to buy land in Israel and its distribution among Jews, 78% (close to 2 million dunams) of the land in the JNF's control were transferred to it by the state in 1949 and 1953. The majority of this land belonged to Palestinian refugees and displaced persons.

Adalah argued that the ILA, as a public agency established under law, is not authorized to adopt positions or pursue goals which are contrary to the principles of equality, just distribution and fairness, and it cannot be a sub-contractor for racial discrimination. Adalah emphasized that upholding this discriminatory policy will result in the institutionalization of racially segregated communities in Israel resembling those established under the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and in the perpetuation of the systematic violation of the land and housing rights of Arab citizens.

At a hearing on the petition in September 2007, the Supreme Court approved a proposal made by the JNF and the Attorney General’s Office to delay further deliberations on the case in order to allow a final agreement to be reached over a land exchange between the state and the JNF. Under this proposal, the JNF will allow Arab citizens to bid for JNF- lands for three months; in return the state will compensate the JNF for land acquired by Arab citizens by transferring alternative state lands to it.

Adalah objected to the proposal on the ground that it does not end the discrimination against Arab citizens as the JNF will maintain its current hold over 2.5 million dunams of land. The case is pending.

According to official figures, around 89% of all towns and villages in Israel are classified as Jewish. Palestinian Arab citizens of the state are excluded from purchasing leasing rights in approximately 78% of these towns and villages, which are known as community or agricultural towns.

The reason for their exclusion is that “selection committees” monitor applications for housing units in these areas, in order to filter out the Arab population, often finding Arab applicants to be ‘socially unsuitable’ and prevent them from residing in large areas of state-controlled land. Among the criteria that these committees employ is that the applicant be “suited to social life in a small community or agricultural settlement”.

In addition, “a senior official from the settlement agency” (the Jewish Agency or the World Zionist Organization) must sit on the selection committee.

Ms. Fatina Ebriq Zubeidat and Mr. Ahmed Zubeidat, after marrying in the summer of 2006, filed an application to live in the community town of Rakefet in the north of Israel. Both graduated from the College of Architecture at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem with distinction. The selection committee that examined their request to live in Rakefet rejected their application following the interview on the humiliating ground of their ‘social unsuitability’.

In September 2007, Adalah filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Israel on behalf of the couple demanding the cancellation of selection committees. Adalah argued that the activities of these committees contradict the right of the citizen or resident to choose his or her place of residence in any town or village in Israel. Adalah further demanded a ruling that “social suitability” as a criterion for acceptance to community towns is arbitrary and unconstitutional. A broad coalition of social change and human rights organizations joined the case as petitioners: Another Voice in the Galilee, the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow, Bimkom, the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance, and the Arab Center for Alternative Planning.

The Supreme Court has issued a temporary injunction requiring the town of Rakefet to set-aside a plot of land for the Zubeidats pending the final outcome of this case. Haifa University Continues its Legal Battle to use ‘Military Service’ Criterion to Discriminate against Arab Students The State of Israel has initiated a range of policies and issued various decisions that condition eligibility for public services or award significant benefits on the performance of military service. As the vast majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel are exempt from and do not perform military service, the use of this criterion discriminates against them on the basis of their national belonging. The use of the “military service criterion” has now become one of the main tools employed by the state with which to direct public funds and lands solely towards Jewish citizens. By employing this criterion, the state is violating its duty to serve as a trustee for the entire public. Significantly, individuals who have served in the Israeli military already receive substantial compensation under the Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994), which enumerates all the social and economic benefits to which discharged soldiers are entitled, including housing and educational grants and awards.

During 2007, Adalah appeared before the Supreme Court on an appeal filed by the University of Haifa to overturn a district court decision to cancel the university’s use of the military service criterion in allocating student dorms. The district court issued its landmark decision in the case filed by Adalah in October 2005. According to the court’s decision, the use of this criterion is illegal and discriminates against Arab students on the basis of their national belonging. Haifa University launched its appeal to the Supreme Court in 2006, deciding to continue its legal battle to be able to discriminate by using the “military service criterion”. Clearly this appeal contradicts the university’s role to promote equality and pluralism in academia and society.

Adalah is representing three Arab women students in this case whose applications for student dorms had been rejected, despite their difficult economic situation and the lack of public transportation from their villages to the university.

Israel’s discriminatory educational policies have led to the severe under-funding of Arab education in Israel and the consequent underperformance of Arab pupils. In addition to under-funding, the state is also limiting the options available to Arab children relative to their Jewish counterparts. Jewish religious and secular children are provided with numerous and varied choices of schools, whereas Arab students and their parents have little choice regarding the schools in which they will study. While the state is supporting dozens of special state schools in various fields such as the arts, sciences, technology and communications, as well as democratic schools, for Jewish children, the Arab educational system lacks even ordinary kindergartens and elementary schools.

Today, Israel is funding 25 official special schools for the arts for Jewish children, but none for Arab children. Research into the use of art as a means of developing children’s educational levels has found that an arts-based education leads to an improvement in educational achievement and the development of cognitive and critical reasoning skills, writing ability, self-expression and comprehension. Following the Municipality of Haifa and Education Ministry’s rejection of a request for the establishment of an official Arab elementary school for the arts in Haifa made by the Association for the Development of Arab Education in Haifa, Adalah filed a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court in August 2007 on behalf of 33 parents of Arab elementary school children. Adalah argued that the refusal to open a special Arab school for the arts violates the right of Arab children to equality, which compels the state to allocate resources equally among the citizenry, and breaches their parents’ right to choose the type of education their children receive. The case is pending.

At two o’clock in the morning on 22 October 2007, Palestinian political prisoners –classified by Israel as “security” prisoners – incarcerated in the Ketziot prison located in the Naqab (Negev) desert in southern Israel were awoken by the sound of live bullet fire and screams. According to their testimonies, the prisoners were assaulted by hundreds of guards carrying various kinds of weapons and wearing masks to cover their faces. The guards opened fire on, hurled abuse at and humiliated them. Apparently the guards sought to conduct searches of the prisoners’ living quarters. The extreme violence employed by the prison guards led to the death of a prisoner named Mohammed Sati Mahmoud and the injury of a large number of other prisoners. Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli prisons and detention centers face systematic violations of their human rights and severe discrimination compared to “criminal” prisoners, including in their access to justice, conditions of confinement, access to the outside world and to education.

On 21 November 2007 Adalah and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) presented numerous testimonies from the prisoners and demanded that the head of the National Prison Guards Investigation Unit of the Israeli police open a criminal investigation and indict those responsible. Adalah and PCATI also demanded that the Israel Prison Service provide much improved and appropriate living conditions for prisoners incarcerated at the Ketziot prison, in view of the current inhumane conditions.

East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. However, Israel is escalating its efforts to consolidate control over its “indivisible and eternal capital” through various means, including reducing the number of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem by revoking their residency status. On 29 May 2006, four members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) – who are currently imprisoned and facing charges in an Israeli military court – were informed that unless they resigned from their positions, the Interior Minister would revoke their permanent residency status. The Interior Minister claimed the ground for the revocations to be “breach of trust”. The men ran and were elected as Hamas members of the PLC in January 2006, and Israel has since designated Hamas a “terrorist organization”. The men appealed the cancellation of their residency status before the Israeli Supreme Court.

In May 2007, Adalah and ACRI submitted an “amicus curiae” brief to the Supreme Court in this case contending that the expulsion of persons from their place of permanent residence violates their constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty and property. They emphasized the special status of the residency of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, which is residency by virtue of birth and thus differs in nature than that of immigrants; the men never entered Israel and their status was never made conditional to any terms. Significantly, Israel has recognized that the Palestinian residents of the eastern part of the city are part of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. Consequently, Israel permitted them to vote and run in the PLC elections which were supported and monitored by the international community. It was only once the petitioners were elected to the PLC that Israel decided to cancel their residency status, as it did not welcome the election results. The case is pending.

Israel’s land allocation policies overwhelmingly benefit Jewish citizens. Since the establishment of the state in 1948, successive Israeli governments have enacted land laws and pursued land planning policies that have resulted in the confiscation of Arab-owned land, the displacement of Arab citizens from their homes and the unjust and unequal allocation of land resources. One means employed by the state is to limit the area of available land to Arab citizens by designating the lands as “non-residential” on official zoning on planning maps.

In September 2007, Adalah began representing Arab Druze citizens of Israel living in Daliyat al-Carmel in the north in their legal challenge to a master plan that covers 4,000 dunams of land and proposes a “National Park and Har Shukiv Forest” to which village land would be joined. As Adalah argued before the Haifa District Court, the owners of the land have been cultivating it since before the establishment of Israel and the land contains no national resources to justify its appropriation. Therefore, the objective of this master plan is to preclude the future development of Daliyat al-Carmel on the land owned by its inhabitants and violates their property rights and their right to a livelihood. Demanding the Return of Land in Arab Village of Lajoun, Confiscated over 50 Years Ago The lands of the Arab village of Lajoun were previously part of Umm al-Fahem, the second largest Arab town in Israel, located in Wadi Ara in the center of the country. The 200-dunam plot was confiscated from its owners, along with other plots of land totaling 34,600 dunams, on 15 November 1953, in accordance with an order issued by the then-Minister of Finance. The reason given in the order for the confiscation is “essential settlement and development needs”; however, until today the only use the state has made of the confiscated land is to construct a man-made forest containing an industrial facility belonging to the “Mekorot” water company.

In March 2007, the Nazareth District Court rejected a lawsuit filed by Adalah on behalf of approximately 200 Palestinian citizens of Israel regarding the ownership of the Lajoun lands. The court rejected Adalah’s argument that the lands must be returned to their original owners as the confiscation is fundamentally invalid and the land in question has not been used for “essential settlement and development needs” in over fifty years. In its decision the court gave an extremely broad definition of the term “settlement” as used in the confiscation order, deciding that, “Settlement does not mean only building a house, but also any other usage required for citizens in Israel in general…”

In May 2007 Adalah appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court erred in finding that a man-made forest falls within the definition of a “settlement needs”. This interpretation, Adalah argued, violates the landowners’ constitutional right to property and legitimizes the illegal seizure of land. Adalah again demanded that the land be returned to its original owners, as there is clearly no need for the state to construct residential settlements on the land in question and the public need for the confiscation is therefore invalid.

israel | human rights | news report ghassanb at imemc dot org