UM del - 2004-05 (1. samling) - Bilag 12: Rapport fra oktober 2004 vedr. "War Crimes in Rafah. Violations of International Human Rights during the "Rainbow" operation" om menneskerettighedssituationen i Rafah

I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3II. The geographical situation of Rafah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5III. Chronology of "Operation Rainbow" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8IV. The applicable law: international humanitarian law and international human rights lawTreatment of the civilian population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13V. Treatment of the civilian population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14VI. Attacks on the property of the civilian population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17VII. The use of "human shields". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26VIII. Obstacles to medical aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27IX. Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

I. Introduction1. Purpose of the missionThe International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Médecins du monde (MDM) sent two simultaneous and complementarymissions of investigation on the human rights and humanitarian law situation in Rafah, in the South of the Gaza Strip, following thebeginning of military operation "Rainbow" conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in May 2004. The operation took place inseveral stages. The mission investigated the events that occurred between 13 May 2004, date of the first series of Israeli army'sincursions into Rafah, and 25 May, when they finally withdrew from the last district of Rafah that they were occupying.The task of the FIDH mission was to identify possible violations of international humanitarian law and of international human rightslaw committed during the "Rainbow" operation. This report, which is based on an investigation in the field carried out jointly withMDM, upon the examination of documents and a legal analysis, does not claim to be an exhaustive account of the situation in theOccupied Palestinians Territories.The investigative missions took place from 5 to 11 June 2004, and were composed of Olivier De Schutter, FIDH Secretary general,Professor of law at the Louvain Catholic University and New-York University, and Laurence Weerts, from the Center ofinternational law at the Free University of Brussels, for FIDH. For MDM, two medical doctors, Marie Rajablat and Alain Dufranc,conducted the mission.This report will be completed by a parallel report from MDM.

2. The organisation of the missionFor the purpose of the missions, the team visited Jerusalem, Gaza City, and spent more time at Khan Yunis and Rafah. Theycollected numerous testimonies from the civil population at Rafah, in particular from the families of victims or eye-witnesses,including journalists, doctors and nursing staff. Numerous members of the medical and paramedical professions were interviewed, inparticular ambulance staff and the medical and management personnel at the An-Najjar hospital1. International Committee of the RedCross (ICRC) personnel were interviewed. The members of the mission also met staff members of the United Nations agenciespresent in Gaza, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and the United Nations Office forthe Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).Most of the persons interviewed expressed no objection to their testimony being attributed to them, and to their name appearing inthe report. We were careful however to ensure anonymity when requested – and the question was asked systematically to all personsinterviewed -, and also in exceptional cases when we had some doubt regarding the reality of the person's consent. We paid attentionto crosschecking testimonies, not only by comparing testimonies but also by consulting the medical registers at An-Najjar hospital,which are complete for the period concerned, with the identity, age and nature of the injury for all persons admitted.In addition, the team members carried out field visits in the city of Rafah, in the bombed out districts of Tel al Sultan, Bloc O andBrazil, in the private dwellings in Tel al Sultan, Bloc O and Brazil. They visited the schools where UNRWA provides shelter forfamilies obliged to leave their homes that have been either destroyed or likely to be. They visited An-Najjar hospital. They followedthe route followed by demonstration of 19 May 2004, from Rafah City to Tel al Sultan. They analysed the registers and medical filesavailable for the period concerned. They viewed several videos, in particular relating to the 19 May demonstration. They had accessto numerous photographic documents. They were able to consult OCHA's extensive collection of maps.The members of the mission discussed the "Rainbow" operation events with the representatives of Médecins du Monde in Gaza andJerusalem, where the organisation has a permanent presence. They also gathered information from several human rights non-governmental organisations, in particular the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), which has offices in Gaza City andRafah, the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights (Gaza City), B’Tselem (Jerusalem), and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel(ACRI). They would in particular like to express their gratitude to PCHR for the help of the staff and the quality of the assistanceprovided to the mission.The team met with members of the Palestinian National Authority, including the governor of Rafah, and with several members of theRafah city council. During their stay in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, on several occasions the team memberscontacted members of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). In particular one of the members of the mission had a long telephoneconversation on 9 June 2004 with Sec. Lt. Erely Eran, Assistant Head of Foreign Relations Dept. of the IDF District Coordinationand Liaison Office – Gaza Strip. These contacts however did not seem sufficient. On 15 June 2004 the mission members thereforewrote to the office of the IDF spokesperson, asking for comments on a series of questions. An answer to the list of questions reachedFIDH on 15 July 20042.During a telephone conversation held on 9 June 2004, the IDF representative suggested that the draft of the mission report be sent toIDF for review in order to eliminate “possible factual errors”. For reasons of objectivity FIDH declined the invitation. FIDH takesfull responsibility for the findings set out below.

1. The Gaza StripThe Gaza Strip covers 360 square kilometers along the Mediterranean coast, between Egypt and Israel. 1.4 million people live there.Almost half of them are under the age of 15. The population density is one of the highest in the world. Over a third of the territory ofthe Gaza Strip is unaccessible to the Palestinian population, being occupied by 6 to 7,000 settlers and the Israeli army. The socio-economic conditions of the Palestinian population are very bad. At least 28% of the inhabitants of Gaza are unemployed. 75% of thepopulation live below the poverty line. In view of the obstacles to communications with the outside world, as the Gaza port andairport are unusable, the enclave only subsists thanks to international aid, in particular that of the European Union, and the work ofUNRWA.The Gaza Strip is entirely enclosed by a frontier that is "materialised" by walls, fences and buffer zones. Entry and exit can only takeplace via a few crossing points, some of which are reserved for the inhabitants of the Israeli settlements in Gaza. The Erez crossingpoint is open to persons – Palestinian and foreign -, whereas the Karni crossing point is used for goods only. On the Egyptian borderthe Rafah terminal, which under the Oslo Agreements (1993) was to be under joint Palestinian and Israeli control, was closed by theIsraeli army shortly after the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000. It was subsequently re-opened, but is now subjectto temporary closure by the Israeli authorities.Salah El Din road, which constitutes the main artery, goes through the Gaza Strip from North to South. The road is regularly closedby Israeli military checkpoints located opposite the Netzarim settlement, South of Gaza City, and opposite the Kfar Darum settlementbetween Deir al Balah and Khan Yunis. By this arrangement the Gaza Strip is divided up into three entirely separate segments. TheIsraeli military forces control the checkpoints, and can decide, anytime, to cut off the segments from each other, preventing anymovement from one sector of the Gaza Strip to another. This is a serious hindrance to local economic activities, by preventing thesupply of services, the transit of goods and the movement of persons.

2. The governorate and the city of RafahThe Rafah governorate is located in the South of the Gaza Strip, along the Egyptian border.166,700 out of the 127,400 inhabitants live in the city of Rafah. 80% of the population of Rafah are refugees living in "camps". Thecamps were initially formed of tents during the refugee influxes in 1948 and 1967, and are now composed of proper dwellings. Theyare made up of several districts, some of which are on the frontier.To the North of Rafah, the area bordering the Mediterranean sea is occupied by the Gush Katif complex, composed of 11 Israelisettlements. The area is entirely controlled by the Israeli army. The Tel al Sultan district, at the north-western end of Rafah, is thedistrict closest to the settlements: it located a few hundred meters from Rafiah Yam settlement.To the East of Rafah, the proximity of Meeraj settlement led to the closure of one of the two roads between Khan Yunis and Rafah.The shortest route (7 km) between the two towns ran close to Meeraj, and was closed to traffic. There only remainsSalah el Dinroad, which places the two cities 15 km apart; the road is controlled by the Israeli army at theSufa-Morag Junctioncheckpoint. AsSalah el Dinroad is the only access to Rafah, thecheckpointcan seal off the whole of Rafah governorate from the rest of the GazaStrip.The Rafah region has been particularly affected by the destruction of houses by the Israeli army. It is estimated that since October2000 1497 dwellings have been wholly or partially destroyed in Rafah, involving around 15,000 people3. The Rafah districts locatedon the Egyptian border and that have been subjected to destructions are gradually giving way to "buffer zones". A buffer zone isaround 50 metres wide, although the width can vary from place to place. It is controlled by the Israeli army. It extends from theborder (the international frontier between Egypt and Gaza), and a steel and concrete wall, nearly 8 meters high, built to protect IDFpatrols from Palestinian activists. The Israeli army has built several "watching towers" in these zones.Despite the general nature of this presentation, the question of medical assistance in Rafah is worth a special mention. Access topatients, to the injured and victims in a zone of military operations is arranged through "co-ordination" with the Israeli militaryauthorities4. Under the co-ordination system, the public service medical emergency teams of the Palestinian Ministry of Health get intouch with the designated Palestinian authority via the District Coordination Office (DCO), which in turn gets in touch with Israeliarmy via the District Coordination Liaison (DCL). The DCL then sends down the army line of command the request for transport ofcasualties, which eventually reaches the soldier at the checkpoint, who then authorises the passage of the ambulance. The medicalemergency teams of associations or NGOs go through the International Committee of the Red Cross, which contacts the Israeli army(DCL). These requests for co-ordination are recorded by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PCRS) that notes the time of the call,the identities of the persons to be taken in charge, their location, the type of injury, the time of departure of the ambulance, the timeof its arrival, and any incidents that occur. The authorisation to enter a conflict zone does not automatically mean that authorisationwill be given to leave it. In principle, all co-ordinations for access to persons who are sick, injured or deceased are recorded either bythe DCO or the ICRC.An-Najjar hospital at Rafah has two operating theaters and can only accommodate 40 casualties. When the Sufa Moragcheckpointisclosed, the transfer of injured persons to the hospitals situated to the North – theEuropean Hospitaland theNasserhospital at KhanYunis, which are larger and better equipped - is impossible.

First phaseOn 12, 13 and 14 May 2004, the Israeli army divided the Gaza Strip into three segments7.Salah el Din– the only road into Rafah –was closed atcheck pointSufa-Morag, thereby isolating Rafah from the city of Khan Yunis. TheKarnicrossing point, the transitpoint for merchandise, was closed on 11 May.A few minutes after an Israeli armoured vehicle exploded onPhiladelphia Roadon 12 May, helicopters flew over Salah el Din Gate.Fearing retaliation and destruction, people living in that area fled to the nearest Egyptian border area. Israeli soldiers invaded andransacked their houses8. Israeli armed forces invaded districts along the border -Block OandBrazil– during the night of 12 to 13May. In Block O, around 1 a.m. tanks shelled houses, and then had them demolished by bulldozers9. At that same time, taking theresidents of the Brazil district by surprise in the middle of the night, there was more tank fire and bulldozers started destroyingcertain homes10. Around 1 a.m. on 13 May, and during the morning around 10 a.m.,Apachehelicopter gunships launched missilesthat killed 11 Palestinians, including one child, and wounded 15 others11. Tanks and bulldozers, with support from the helicopters,completely demolished 68 houses, and partly destroyed around 20 more12. Reports indicated that 23 shops, a bank and a mosquewere also destroyed13.On 14 May, spokespersons of the Office of the United Nations Secretary General condemned the home demolition going on in Rafahand called upon Israel to stop this type of action immediately14. At the same time, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)petitioned to the Israeli High Court to order the IDF to stop demolishing the houses it had attacked in Block O in Rafah. The requestwas submitted on Friday, 14 May at 5 p.m. on behalf of the 13 families whose houses were threatened to be destroyed. At 11:30 p.m.the High Court issued a temporary injunction against the order and the demolition operation was stopped.Between 13 and 15 May, 14 Palestinians, including two children were killed and 48 were wounded15. Eleven victims died of shrapnelfrom missiles fired from the helicopter. One of the victims–Ahmed Mohammed Al-Yaqubi, 19 years old–died from a shot in theback16. During those three days, the houses of 198 families (1,160 people) were destroyed or damaged17. On 15 May, after assessingthe hospital capacity, the ICRC called for immediate dispatch of two surgical kits to treat 100 wounded persons18. On that same day,the Israeli army withdrew from Block O and Brazil. Then on Sunday, 16 May the Israeli High Court lifted the order given two daysbefore in response to a plea from 13 families, represented by the PCHR. The families argued that their homes could not be subject toa demolition order without reasonable time for filing an appeal. The supreme jurisdiction stated that it was not necessary to maintain5

Second phaseThe second IDF offensive occurred during the night of 17-18 May. “Operation Rainbow” officially started at that point. ShaulMofaz, the Israeli Defence Minister and Moshe Ya'alon, IDF Chief of staff, told journalists that the operation was aiming atdestroying hundreds of houses near the Egyptian border. The spokesman of the Israeli army added that the objective was to arrestPalestinian terrorists and destroy tunnels used to smuggle weapons between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. The U.N. Secretary General,in the meantime said that Israel should stop this type of collective punishment immediately19.On 17 May, around 1 p.m. tanks entered Gaza from the Sufa border post and from the village of Meeraj and blocked the Sufa-Moragcheckpoint leading to Rafah region20. Rumours of imminent offensives spread rapidly in the area. Tanks and bulldozers headed to Telal Sultan, Brazil, Bloc O and Es Salaam, destroying farmland on their way21.Missiles were fired on Block O during the night of 17-18 May, first hitting around midnight and then around 3 a.m. Towards 8:30p.m., Tuesday, 18 May, tanks and bulldozers that came from Salah el Din Gate and the cemetery gate circled Brazil. In the morningof 19 May, the army started destroying houses22. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) alsoreported that on 19 May, an Israeli army bulldozer destroyed 20 dunums (1 dunum = 1000 m2) of farmland North-East of Rafah nearthe Meeraj settlement23.

The incursion into Tel al-SultanThe offensive against Tel al-Sultan started on Tuesday, 18 May, at about 3 a.m. Twenty armoured tanks and four bulldozers comingfrom Morag and Rafiah Yam settlements entered Tel al-Sultan. Helicopters provided air cover. During the trek to Tel al-Sultan, thearmoured vehicles and the bulldozers destroyed cultivated land on their way24. The Israeli troops formed a military cordon around thetown, isolating it from other districts of Rafah25. A curfew was imposed in the morning of 18 May when the army was moving in.There was little Palestinian resistance within the city, but helicopters fired missiles three times, wounding many victims26. Thehelicopters shot at an ambulance that had entered the area before it had been sealed off at 4:15 a.m. Israeli snipers targeted a convoyof four ambulances.27A 4 a.m. a missile was launched at theBilal Ben Rabahmosque located across from the Tel al-Sultan clinic. Afew minutes later, two tanks barged into the outer wall of the clinics, firing from machine guns that destroyed the medical supplyarea of the clinic28. Although they were within the clinic grounds, 13 ambulance drivers, doctors and nurses became the target ofIsraeli snipers. The tanks that were stationed outside these grounds forced the people to stay inside the building for more than 12hours in a row, and threatened to shoot should anyone moved. Throughout the Tel al Sultan neighbourhood, Israeli soldiers occupiedcertain houses, clustering the families on the ground floor and staking out on the higher floors after damaging the premises andshooting holes in the walls29. Electricity and water were cut off throughout the area, and many roads inside Tel al-Sultan werecompletely destroyed.On 18 May, towards 11 a.m., two children—Asmaa Muhammad Al Mughaiar (16) and Ahmad Muhammad Al Mughaiar (13),—were killed by snipers staking out in a house 80 meters away while the young girl was folding the laundry and her brother wasfeeding the pigeons on the terrace. On that same day, 19 persons were died, including seven under the age of 18, and 27 wounded, allfrom helicopters fire (a technique called “spraying”), shrapnel from missiles and snipers' shooting30. The ICRC called forcoordination three times on 18 May, but the Israeli DCL and the coordinating officer systematically refused.At night, the Israeli army used human shields to occupy other houses and make their way further into Tel al Sultan31.1920

The demonstration of 19 May 2004On 19 May, shortly after 2 p.m., a peaceful demonstration spontaneously started in the center of Rafah. A protest march headed tothe besieged Tel al Sultan area. Calls from the population were broadcast on the local radio, Radio-Shebab. The marchers hadreached the outskirts and were a few hundred meters from the Tel al Sultan area when a combat helicopter, a few dozen metersoverhead, started firing. A few moments later, a tank nearby opened fire at the marchers; shrapnel killed 8 people, including threechildren between 10 and 13 years old33. 61 people were wounded, including 37 under the age of 1834. Within three minutes, thehelicopter fired two missiles and a tank opened fire as the first ambulances were racing to the scene. An-Najjar Hospital, the onlyhospital in Rafah, could not cope with too many wounded, nor could it handle the transfer of bodies to other hospitals in the region.The bodies that were in the hospital morgue were transported in refrigerated containers for vegetables, in order to make room for thevictims of 19 May.The Israeli Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz told the daily newspaperHaaretzthat “Operation Rainbow” would go on “as long asnecessary”35. As a reaction to the destructions and killings, the U.N. Secretary General firmly condemned “the killing and injury ofPalestinians demonstrators” and called upon Israel to stop these military operations immediately36.On that same day, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1544 (2004), by 14 votes for, and one abstention (U.S.).The resolution condemned the killing of Palestinian civilians in Rafah37and called upon Israel to respect its obligations towardsinternational humanitarian law, in particular its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law38.The ICRC published a press release describing the intensification of Israeli Defence Forces operations in the Gaza Strip on 18 Mayand in Rafah on 19 May and “condemning deliberate attacks against persons who do not participate directly in the hostilities”39. TheICRC also sent two surgical kits for two hundred war victims to An-Najjar Hospital. The Palestinian Red Crescent set up an advancemedical post near the hospital40. Within a few hours after hearing news of the attack on the Rafah demonstration and the destructionof houses, especially in the Brazil area, ACRI, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, on its own behalf and on behalf of threeother human rights organisation (Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-Israel), Ha' Moked – Center for the Defense of theIndividual, and B’Tselem) filed an urgent petition with the Israel High Court of Justice. The petition was formally presented on 20May and lead to the conduction of an immediate hearing. At the hearing, the IDF staff present were asked to provide the Court with adetailed explanation as to how the sufferings inflicted upon the civilian populations of Rafah during the operation were minimized.The Court concluded the hearing by finding that the army had taken certain measures to meet the particular demands formulated bythe petitioners, excluding the request to allow Israeli doctors to enter the area and the immediate opening of a military investigationof the shelling of the gathering of 19 May. On these last two points, the Court agreed with the IDF that allowing Israeli doctors intothe combat area would put them at a high risk of kidnapping, and secondly, that the Judge Advocate General would examine theresults of the preliminary internal investigation being conducted by the IDF unit in question before deciding whether to launch hisown investigation.41The High Court of Justice finally took its decision on 30 May, after the end of “Operation Rainbow”. It obliged the Israeli forcesoccupying the Palestinian territory to respect the Fourth Convention of The Hague (1907) although it has not been formally ratifiedby the State of Israel, and the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel ratified on 6 July 1951. The High Court of Justice recognisedthe obligation of the military authorities to prevent violations of civilian rights, as set out in these instruments.42.

two people. Around 1:30 a.m, a missile killed three men and wounded two in Brazil43. House demolitions started towards 7:30 a.m inthe morning in Brazil. Some premises were destroyed without any warning44, several families were ordered to leave their housewaving a white flag. The Israeli army opened fire on a father and his children as they were leaving their house which was beingdestroyed by a tank. Two children were wounded. An ambulance sent by the Palestinian Ministry of Health on its way to providinghelp, was blocked, although it had got clearance and was subsequently partly covered by sand from two bulldozer operationsalthough it was only 50 meters from the house. Several houses were destroyed without prior warning, and their inhabitants were onlyable to escape with the help of neighbours45.The people suffered from the destruction of the water supply lines and the electricity grid and were beginning to grow short ofdrinking water and food46. Physicians for Human Rights, ICRC and UNRWA emphasised the deterioration of the humanitariansituation47. The Israeli army delayed humanitarian aid and refused Tel al-Sultan to have access to any aid.48On 20 May, a convoy ofvehicles from WHO, WFP, OCHA, UNICEF and UNRWA was denied permission to travel on Salah el Din road to Rafah in theNorth. Establishing coordination with the Israeli military authorities and getting authorisation took five hours49. The ICRC negotiatedaccess for three employees from Rafah to Tel al Sultan to carry out emergency repairs on the water lines50.During the night of 20-21 May, the Israeli army drew back, but maintained a foothold in Tel al-Sultan and Brazil51. The curfew onTel al-Sultan was lifted. The ICRC and UNRWA humanitarian aid convoys were authorised to enter Tel al-Sultan. Tens of thousandsof liters of water and large amounts of food were taken to Tel al-Sultan. In its report on the health situation on 21 May, WHO pointsout that since the beginning of the incursion on 17 May, over 70% of the population in the Rafah governate (the city of Rafah, Rafahcamps and Tel al-Sultan) had been “suffering from complete severance of water, electricity and communications systems”52. On thatday, the army bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses and uprooted olive trees in the Zurub region53. Bertrand Ramcharan, U.N. actingHigh Commissioner for Human Rights, published a press release firmly condemning the actions of the Israeli army since thebeginning of “Operation Rainbow” and called upon Israel to respect its international obligations. After speaking on housedemolitions and the attacks on the demonstrators on 19 May, the release read: “It is of paramount importance to ensure that allcivilians and their property are protected at all times. [Even] when there are security-related considerations, there is no such thing asa licence to kill”.On 22 May, the Israeli army continued its way intoBraziland occupied several houses54. In that same district, a three-year old girl,Rawan Muhammad Abu Zaid was killed by an Israeli sniper that shot her in the head and the neck.On 22 May, the UNRWA convoy bearing water and powdered milk to Tel al-Sultan got pelted by stones as it was entering the city.The windows of the vehicle were broken and the driver was wounded by shattered glass. OCHA explained that the wrath of Tel alSultan residents against UNRWA was caused by the Israeli army’s constant refusal to authorise victims’ bodies to be returned totheir families for proper burial. The inhabitants of Tel al Sultan usually take it out on UNRWA which, in their eyes, should levypressure on the Israeli military authorities. The convoy withdrew to calm the atmosphere. The Israeli army refused passage to aCARE International convoy that was trying to bring in a “tanker” with a reservoir of 10,000 liters of water, while it usually takes thePalestinian Authorities several hours to get permission to bring in five reservoirs of 5,000 litres55.On 24 May, the Israeli army lifted the siege and withdrew completely from Tel al-Sultan. On 25 May, it withdrew from Brazil56. Thisstep ended “Operation Rainbow” in the field.

Destructions during 'Operation Rainbow'On May 26, 2004, Haaretz newspaper quoted military sources that mentioned the discovery of three tunnels during militaryoperations57. These tunnels might be used to facilitate arms traffic from Egypt. The members of the mission were unable to find theplaces where the alleged tunnels were located; in fact it seems that there were two tunnel entries and the beginning of a third one.The Israeli general staff had already mentioned three tunnels during the massive demolition of houses in Rafah on October 10 to 132003. More than 130 houses were affected by this operation and almost 1200 Palestinians, mostly women and children, remainedhomeless.58According to official statements made at the time, three tunnels used mainly for smuggling arms were then destroyed59.The same arguments were used during 'Operation Rainbow'. The following question was included in a questionnaire that containednine of them and that was sent to the offices of the IDF spokesperson after the mission on June 15 2004 : ''We understand that the« Operation Rainbow » led the IDF to uncover tunnels through which smuggling could have taken place from Egypt. Whereprecisely were these tunnels located? » The letter sent to FIDH on the 15th of July contained no answer to this question. Though thelack of answer is regrettable, this does not mean that these tunnels do not exist, nor that « Operation Rainbow » was unable touncover such tunnels and destroy them. However, the members of the mission are convinced that this sole purpose cannot justify thedestruction caused by the operation, considering both the magnitude of destruction and the manner in which it was carried out. Thereport will revert to this point later.Between May 18 and 24, 2004, « Operation Rainbow » caused the demolition of 167 houses, thus affecting 379 families, or 2065people, in the neighborhoods of Tel al-Sultan, Brazil and As Salam.60These figures correspond to those of OCHA, that found that117 buildings were totally destroyed and 50 others partly destroyed in Tel al-Sultan, Brazil and As Salam from May 19 to 23.61B�Tselem mentions 183 houses totally destroyed and dozens partly destroyed between May 13 and 24 ; 116 other houses wereallegedly destroyed along the border: 44 in Brazil, 18 in As Salam and 5 in Tel al-Sultan.62A total number of 3800 persons had their house entirely demolished or rendered uninhabitable. About a thousand persons foundrefuge in four schools organized by UNRWA. The others went to members of their families or friends. UNRWA mentioned that2500 people were taken in by family or acquaintances or by local solidarity networks.63According to the ICRC, 1200 inhabitants ofBrazil whose homes were destroyed received relief packages containing hygienic products, blankets, heaters and cooking implementsprovided by the ICRC and the Red Crescent.64According to the ICRC, Tel al-Sultan and Brazil are two neighborhoods where the population and the infrastructure suffered thegreatest damage during military operations65. During the siege of Tel al-Sultan, eleven houses were destroyed. This is a relativelylow figure compared to the house demolition in the neighborhoods of the city of Rafah. Furthermore, during the operations, the roadinfrastructure was severely damaged as well as the water and electricity mains and the sewage system.66A UNRWA school was alsobadly damaged and partly destroyed.67

IV. The applicable law: international humanitarian law and internationalhuman rights law Treatment of the civilian populationThe Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (referred to hereafter as : 'Fourth GenevaConvention') of 12 August 1949 is, according to article 154, meant to supplement sections II and III of the Hague Regulationsadopted in 1907 which are now considered to be of customary value.68The Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by the State ofIsrael on July 6 1951. The Convention applies to the territory occupied by Israel after the six-day war in June 1967. Furthermore, inits decision dated May 30 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court itself, sitting as High Court of Justice, formally admitted the applicabilityof the IVth Convention in the OPTs. The advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice of July 9 2004, on the legalconsequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory is an additional confirmation of the fact69. Though theopinion concerns the occupied territories on the West Bank that were taken from Jordan during the 1967 conflict, the conclusionspertaining to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention are equally valid concerning the occupied territories of the GazaStrip.The first Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions dated April 8 1977 (referred to below as « Protocol I ») clarifies theprovisions of the Convention relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts by recalling that the provisions ofthe Conventions and the Protocol must be fully applied in all circumstances to all persons protected 'without any unfavorabledistinction based on the nature or origin of the armed conflict or on the causes defended by the parties to the conflict or attributed tothem.'70This protocol has not been ratified by Israel. However, its provisions have an indisputable customary applicability.71Several international treaties pertaining to human rights are also in force vis-a-vis Israel. On October 3 1991, Israel ratified theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,which were both opened to signature and ratification by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966. Israel is alsoparty to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of December 12, 1965, theConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of December 10, 1984 as well as tothe Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 20 1989. The International Court of Justice confirmed the views of UN treatybodies responsible for ensuring the respect pf these treaties, which committees stated that the application of internationalhumanitarian law in situations of armed conflict could not exclude the application of international treaties on human rights.72Furthermore, State Parties must respect such treaties on all territories over which they have jurisdiction, even when such territoriesare located outside the national territory.73The International Court of Justice therefore specifically stated that the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention onthe Rights of the Child were applicable to the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.Under the Oslo agreements, the largest and most densely populated part of the Gaza Strip is administered by the PalestinianAuthority. The remainder of the area holds the settlements and the military bases of the IDF and is controlled by Israel. This cannotbe construed to mean that Israel does not have to abide by the international obligations stemming from its ratification of the UnitedNations human rights treaties. Though civilian matters such as health care, education or town and country planning are under theresponsibility of the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli army actually controls the territory. It restricts travel in the area as it wishes. Itcan intervene at any time, for instance to arrest people or destroy property. During Operation Rainbow, the Israeli armed forcescommitted acts that are serious violations of international humanitarian law and international law on human rights. Israel isresponsible for such acts despite the fact that under the Oslo agreements, the management of civilian affairs is under theresponsibility of the Palestinian Authority and that the Israeli army is not always present in the Palestinian areas. Israel has theobligation to act in conformity with its status as an occupying power under article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is obligedto act in accordance with international treaties on human rights that are in force in Israel, because of the case law referred to aboveinvoked by the committee of experts under these treaties.74Thus, it is pursuant to these standards, all binding for Israel under the international legal system, that the following sections willconsider the events that took place in and around Rafah between May 13 and 25, 2004.According to the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, expressed in its decision of September 30 and October 1sr 1946,p. 65 and confirmed later by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory opinion dated July 8 1996 on the Legality of the Threator Use of Nuclear Weapons ICJ Rep. 1996-I, p. 256, para. 75 (according to the court, these are untransgressible principles ofcustomary international law a large number of the rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict ". Rec. , p. 256, para. 75)and more recently in its Advisory opinion dated July 8 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the construction of a wall in occupiedPalestinian territory, para. 89.69See paragraphs 89 and following of the advisory opinion of July 9 200470Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of August 12 1948, preamble.71DAVID, Eric, Principes du droit des conflits armés, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1994.72See the Advisory Opinion dated July 8 1996 on the Permissibility of the threat or use of nuclear weapons mentioned above, p. 240,para. 73 and the Advisory Opinion of July 8 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall on occupied Palestinianterritory., para 105-106.73See the Advisory Opinion of July 8 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall on occupied Palestinianterritory, para 107-113. The Committee on economic, social and cultural rights stated explicitely that Israel�s obligations pursuant tothe International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights covered the occupied Palestinian territories : see CESCR, F/C.12/1/Add27, para. 32 and F/C. 12/1/Add. 90, paras. 15 and 31 the Human Rights Committee responsible for ensuring the respect ofthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has always adopted the same position: CCPR/CO/78/ISR, para. 11.74Thus, for instance, the Human Rights Committee did not hesitate to condemn the extra judiciary execution of Palestinian militantscommitted by Israel, though these executions took place in areas under the civilian administration of the Palestinian Authority. See(2003) UN doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, particularly para. 15FIDH/ 1368

V. Treatment of the civilian populationDeliberate attacks against life and physical integrityDuring Operation « Rainbow », the civilian population of Rafah was under fire from the Israeli army. Soldiers with sub-machineguns and snipers hiding in the different neighbourhoods shot at children and defenceless adults. In the urban areas, tanks andhelicopters fired at many people, killing or seriously wounding them.The right to life and physical integrity is a fundamental right embodied in article 3 of all four Geneva Conventions of August 12,1949. International humanitarian law is based on the essential distinction between civilians and combatants. This principle is also laiddown in article 48 of the Protocol Additional I which states that operations may only be leveled at military objectives. Civiliansought to be completely protected. This prohibits any form of attack, any violent offensive or defensive act.75'Indiscriminate attacks'are also prohibited76as well as 'attacks used as reprisals against civilian populations.'77These basic standards have been violated systematically and repeatedly by the Israeli forces during operations in Rafah between May13 and 25, 2004. After hearing the testimony of many people, the members of the mission were convinced that several actscommitted by the IDF had no military justification; their sole motive was to terrify the civilian population and commit reprisalsagainst it. Furthermore, these attacks against the people were indiscriminate, without any distinction between civilians andcombatants. They are arbitrary infringements of the right to life and violate the obligations imposed on Israel by the InternationalCovenant on civil and political rights. These are serious charges and must be soundly documented.

Violation of the prohibition of acts the main aim of which is to terrify the population.The information that the mission was able to collect in Rafah shows that the Israelis have directly and deliberately shot at civilians,including children, at a time where they were nowhere standing near any military objective. It seems that acts of this kind only aim atterrifying the civilian population.On May 18, 2004, first day of the raid in Tel al-Sultan, curfew was announced and children of the Al Mughaiar family had to stay athome after lunch because they could not go to school. Ali, 24, who is the brother of the two victims of Israeli snipers, AsmaaMuhammad Al Mughaiar (16) and Ahmad Muhammad Al Mughaiar (13) told us their story:« I woke up in the morning on May 18, and my mother told me there was a curfew. Around 9 a.m, the children were dressed up, hadhad breakfast and were playing. Ahmad went up on the terrace several times. My mother asked him not to. At 11:30 a.m I tried to geta little sleep. The shooting stopped for about 15 or 30 minutes so my sister wanted to go up and get the laundry that was drying onthe terrace. Ahmad wanted to go up to feed his pigeons. We did not know there were snipers less that 80 meters away. We heard twoshots. The first hit Asmaa on the head. Her head was simply cut in two parts. Ahmad saw her and started shouting « Ali, Ali, help,come quick! ». He tried to get away. I found him in the staircase. There were bits and pieces of his brains all over. I squatted next tohim, the shooting was still going on, I saw his head was open. My mother asked me to try and get him downstairs. I tried to hold hishead and tie it up with a piece of cloth. I laid him down in the room. Then I went back upstairs and crawled to my sister's body. Thatwas even worse. I picked up the pieces of her skull and brought her body down. »Another inhabitant told us about the events in Brazil, and confirmed that the Israeli army committed acts that are prohibited sincetheir main aim is to terrify the civilian population:« At 8 o'clock in the morning of Thursday May 20, we heard the bulldozers and the tanks. One tank hit the wall of the house twice.The third time, the wall crumbled. I grabbed a white flag and asked to be allowed to leave the house with my little girl. The canon ofthe tank moved to show that I could leave. The tanks had been on the corner of the street since 11 o�clock the night before. Wewalked 100 meters towards the tank and they started firing at us with a machine gun. The children started screaming and we turnedback to the house. My son was hit by a bullet, his arm was covered in blood. We held the T-shirt up to show the tank that someonehad been wounded. They revved up to scare us. »In these cases, just as during the May 19 events, the attacks were aimed at civilians or people 'who were not taking part directly in the7576

hostilities'.78During the spontaneous demonstration in Rafah on May 19, an armored vehicle and a helicopter of the Israeli armedforces shot at the crowd of civilians, among which many children who were heading the march. The Israeli forces killed 8 people;among which 4 children. and injured 61 more. A witness, a photographer from Associated Press told us the following:''The march started after the noon prayer. There were more that 1500 people, say between 1500 and 3000. We got to the 'Zorab'crossing. The children were in the front. We heard a few shots, not many, that came from the tank and the snipers in the buildings.The Apache helicopter flew lower. Then the tank fired a shell. I was filming. It was obvious that they were aiming at the children.There were no warning shots, no warning on the loud speaker. Then, just as the wounded were being carried away, there wasanother explosion, another shell from the tank and some more shots from the helicopter ».The shooting of missiles and shells can be likened to acts the sole aim of which is to terrify the population, for they had no militaryreason whatsoever. Israeli military sources even stated that the aim of the firing was to dissuade the demonstrators from coming closeto Tel al-Sultan79. According to the same sources, the tank was aiming at an empty building nearby and the shots had gone astray dueto human error. In a press release on May 19, the ICRC explicitly condemned the attacks perpetrated by the Israeli army. Accordingto the press release : 'Due to the increase of Israeli armed forces operations in the Gaza Strip (May 18) and Rafah (May 19) duringwhich many civilians were killed and even more were wounded, the ICRC calls upon the forces to respect international humanitarianlaw and condemns the deliberate attacks against persons who are not participating directly in hostilities. Such attacks are prohibitedin all circumstances'80. In a resolution on May 19 2004, the United Nations Security Council used the following terms in relation toIsrael: « Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area »81Terrifying the civilian populationthrough acts of violence or even the threat of violence constitutes a violation of article 51 § 2 or the Protocol Additional I to theGeneva Conventions.

Violation of the prohibition of indiscriminate attacksSome Israeli sources have reported that one of the victims in the shooting on the crowd of demonstrators was a « terrorist »,suggesting that this individual was armed82. The mission view films of the demonstration, shot from several angles. They also lookedat pictures of the demonstration. The film made during the demonstration shows that the demonstration was proceeding peacefullyand that there was no sign of armed demonstrators. Also IDF officers never mentioned in their statements anyone being armed in thedemonstration. In addition, article 50 of Protocol I stipulates that where there is any doubt, a person is presumed to be a civilian (art.50, §1) and that the presence of individual fighting elements in the civilian population does not detract from its « civilian » nature(art. 50, §3) and its protection. That being the case, even when there is one individual fighting element, firing shells and missiles on apeaceful crowd of people tantamounts to an indiscriminate attack that is prohibited by article 51 § 4 of Protocol I. Under the terms ofthis provision the expression « indiscriminate attacks » are « a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; b) thosewhich employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or c) those which employ amethod or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited […] »(art. 51, §4). Obviously, firing a shell towards or near acrowd constitutes an indiscriminate attack. By launching such an attack, the authorities have consciously accepted the risk that theywould cause loss of life to the civilian population and injury to civilians; these would be extreme losses of life and injury comparedto the positive and direct military advantage expected (see. art. 51,§5, b)).

Violation of the prohibition on attacks carried out as reprisalsThe sequence of events that took place in May 2004 at Rafah is evidence of the kind of attacks carried out as reprisals against thecivilian population by the Israeli army. Just like the indiscriminate attacks and the activity designed to spread terror amongst thecivilian population , the attacks carried out as reprisals are categorically prohibited by article 51 § 6 of Protocole I as it prohibits« attacks carried out as a reprisal against the civilian population ».Ever since the armoured vehicle was blown up, causing the death of five soldiers, the Israeli army have targeted the civilianpopulation in Rafah. According to a witness:“On 12thMay at 18.00, ever since the blowing-up of the armoured vehicle on Philadelphi Road, the Israelis have begun todirect bursts of gunfire from their watching towers. Several tanks arrived. Families tried to keep safe. The gunfire did notstop. The operation started, they made sand dunes and started the destruction. Helicopters flew over. Eight people amongstthose who fled died. On Thursday 13 May, at about 10 a.m, two children were killed by a missile; one of them Ala Njili was10 and the other child, Muhammad Mussa Muwassi, 13. Another person, Ashraf Gushta, around 35 year old, even died inthe rubble of his house.”This account reveals the fact that the shots were fired by the Israeli army – immediately after the armoured vehicle was blown up andindiscriminately targeting the civilian population, and thus amount to a retaliatory action. Since 14 May, official statements bymembers of the Israeli government, announcing the launch of a large-scale operation to « raze to the ground dozens of houses »following losses suffered by the army, show that the losses suffered by the Israeli army in the attack on Philadelphi Road was a directcause of the decision to attack the population in Rafah. The disproportionate nature of the operation is additional evidence for themotive behind the attacks – an act of reprisal – that consequently could not but target a civilian population. The Israeli militaryauthorities have justified the operation because of their need « to clean » the area of « terrorists » and to dismantle the tunnelsSee article 3 of all four Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949.Al Mezan, May 19, 11pm. See alsowww.idf.il,on June 14 2004.80ICRC, May 19 2004. The press release of the Secretary General of the United Nations denounced " the killing of peacefuldemonstrators, many of them women and children ". UN Press Release, SG/SM/9316PAL/1984, May 19 2004.81CS NU, Res. 1544 (2004), May 19 2004, 5th Recital of the Preamble.82See.www.idf.il,consulted on 14 June 2004.7978

Arbitrary violations of the right to lifeActs aiming at spreading terror amongst the population, indiscriminate attacks making no distinction between civilians and thoseinvolved in the hostilities, reprisal strategies: these serious violations of international humanitarian law are also violations ofinternational human rights law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary violations ofthe right to life. The Human Rights Committee pointed out, in the general Comment it dedicated to the right to life :84:The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article 6 (1) is ofparamount importance. The Committee considers that State parties should take measures not only to prevent and punishdeprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of lifeby the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit thecircumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.During the « Rainbow » operation, the civilian population was targeted by the Israeli armed forces. With no prior warning, an Israelitank fired on a peaceful crowd of demonstrators from a few meters away, killing 8 people and wounding many others. In the pretextof imposing the curfew, IDF snipers fired on residents of Tel al-Sultan, including children of about 10 years old. These actsconstitute grave breaches of the right to life. Extra-judicial killings are prohibited in international law, even when they involve« wanted » people because they are « suspected », for example of having committed acts of terrorism or preparing to commit them85.This ought very reasonably apply to deliberate attacks on the life of people who do not present a threat to security. Such acts shouldresult in independent fast-track and effective investigations in order to identify those who are responsible for deciding and carryingthem out.

VI. Attacks on the property of the civilian populationUNWRA report on the destruction of 167 houses during the « Rainbow » operation, affecting 379 families, and 2,066 people amongwhom more than 1 000 had to take refuge in schools that were equipped by UNRWA as emergency accommodation86. Thedestruction carried out by the Israeli army targeted, apart from the houses of whole families, water and electricity infrastructures,public roads and some farms. Such acts are similar to the destruction prohibited by international humanitarian law in so far as theyare directed at « property of a civil nature », property or possessions that enjoy a similar immunity to that enjoyed by civilians. Thedefinition of property of a civil nature is a negative definition: according to article 52 § 1stof Protocol I additional to the GenevaConvention, property of a civil nature is all the property that is not a military objective. The rules relating to the protection ofproperty of a civil nature have been broken right through the course of the operation « Rainbow ». The destruction of the houses orcivil infrastructure constitute a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the International Covenanton Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and also a violation of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degradingsuffering or treatment. ».So as to explain the destruction of the houses, the official line from the Israeli authorities by preference resorts to neutral terms : theyare not « houses » or « dwellings », but « structures » or « buildings ». Moreover, the line taken claims to justify the destructionperpetrated because of the link that the houses targeted might have with terrorist activity directed against the Israeli armed forces oragainst the Israeli civilian population, especially the settlers. So, in the letter which IDF spokesman sent to FIDH on 15 July , hesaid :The following are the conditions under which a structure may be demolished :Gunmen using the structure as shelter from which to attack forces. International law states that in cases in which structuresare used as a shelter for hostile operations, they lose their immunity and may be targeted.Movement of heavy vehicles forced off the main routes. Main routes were heavily rigged with explosives (150 kg at times),proving fatal and dangerous for the forces. Therefore, the vehicles were forced to use side roads and back yards. Beingheavy armored vehicles ravelling through narrow alleys and yards, damage to the surrounding structures was inevitable. If itwere not for Palestinians rigging the roads with explosive devices, the IDF would not have been forced to travel throughnarrow alleys and yards.Wire for explosive materials leading to a structure.Structures providing cover for weapons smuggling tunnels.The justifications put forward call for the following comments. Firstly, this set of statements does not correspond to the publicstatements made by military officers or by the Israeli government's spokesmen which state that the objective in demolishing housesin the area along the border with Egypt is to expand the « safety corridor » to help the Israeli army to control this area. In aninterview on January 16, 2002 to explain the demolition of about 60 houses in the Rafah refugee camp on the 9thand 10thJanuary2002, Major-general Yom Tov Samiah stated the following on the Israeli radio:« These houses should have been demolished and evacuated a long time ago… Three hundred meters of the Strip along the two sidesof the border must be evacuated… Three hundred meters, no matter how many houses, period».The aim of extending the safety area also appears in official statements made more recently and issued by the press:« It’s a measure that we are taking to provide better protection for armoured personnel carriers and the soldiers, and to reshape thattheatre of war so we will enjoy an advantage and not the Palestinians »87Haaretznewspaper attributes to an « Israeli political source », with no other detail, the suggestion according to which:« …thearmy intends to destroy ‘dozens or perhaps hundreds’ of homes and widen the 9-km long buffer zone […] »88.« The representatives of the FIDH having conducted the inquiry mission have arrived at the conclusion during their mission that thisobjective, although not publicly admitted, was in fact the real objective of house demolishing. The apparently selective way theywent about demolishing the houses – which entailed for example demolishing six or seven houses in a street of ten and leaving threeor four other houses intact – makes this fairly obvious. The selective way they destroyed the houses is a result of the concern theIsraeli armed forces had not to once more create the terrible impression that the absolute destruction of the al-Hawashin district in theJenin refugee camp in April 2002 had on world opinion ; this created an area of devastation of 400 x 500 meters and put 800 familiesout on to the streets, that is something like about 4,000 people. The devastation that the official representatives of the FIDH saw inRafah was not so spectacular, as even in the districts most affected, some of the houses were spared. However, this systematicdevastation occurs at regular intervals in Rafah ; for example, before 167 houses were destroyed during the « Rainbow » operation,60 houses had been destroyed on 9 and 10 October 2003. In February 2004, the UN Human Rights Commission special8687

representative in the Palestinian Occupied Territories estimated that since 2000, some 1,063 houses had been destroyed in Rafah,putting out in to the street 1,846 families and almost 9,970 people . Periods of massive house destruction followed one after the other,straining the ability of the UNRWA to cope with the resultant humanitarian emergencies. The repetitive nature of this devastationand the resultant outcome - in other words clearing a « buffer zone » free of any housing along the international border with Egypt –appears as the deliberate objective of the army. The way in which the armed forces operated during this operation tallies with thisobjective. According to the reports and the films showing destryed houses that the FIDH mission was able to see, it appears that thedecision to destroy certain houses was made in an arbitrary fashion or was guided by exclusively practical considerations – thehighest buildings for example were more usually spared, having considered the difficulty the bulldozers and the tanks would have indestroying these buildings. The maps , especially those drawn up and regularly updated by OCHA, leave no doubt as to the fact thatthis devastation affected in particular those houses along the edge of Philadelphi Road, creating little by little the security area whichthe IDF general staff claim to be for evident security reasons. It is also notable that the Israeli armed forces do not have any record ofthe houses that were destroyed, of the identity of the owners of these houses or of the people who lived in the houses.There is therefore reason to question statements by the IDF spokesman that indicate that no house demolition took place if this wasnot in one of the four illustrated cases made known in the letter of 15 July 2004 previously mentioned (« Only under specificoperational circumstances is it necessary to demolish structures, and this only when there is no other alternative »). Furthermore,even if it was necessary to give credence to this statement, it displays a misunderstanding and a tendentious interpretation ofinternational humanitarian law as well as a total absence of the appreciation of the bounds on the demolition of private houses set byinternational human rights law.The demolition of houses cannot be justified just because those houses could have or could be used to shelter armed Palestinianmilitants that pose a threat to the lives of soldiers of the Israeli armed forces. Article 52 § 2 of the Protocol I , additional to theGeneva Conventions prescribes that « attacks have to be strictly confined to military objectives. As far as property is concerned,military objectives are confined to property that, because of its nature, its location, its purpose or its use, can effectively contribute toassist military activity and its complete or partial demolition, its seizure or neutralisation can provide, as it happens, a specificmilitary advantage ». Article 52 § 3 of Protocol I prescribe also that:Where there is any doubt, a piece of property that is normally assigned for civil use such as a place of worship, a house,other types of living accommodation or a school, is presumed not to be used to effectively contribute to military activity.The protection enjoyed by civil houses has to be strictly interpreted and conflicts with any kind of precautionary demolition. Thiskind of demolition can only be undertaken if the piece of property that is to be destroyed can effectively contribute to the otherparty’s military activity, in other words a real and not a potential contribution.89A house is presumed not to contribute to anymilitary activity even when it is situated in a front-line area - which consequently requires the armed forces to display restraint andcare90. A house could only be demolished in a situation where demolition is the only way of neutralising or disabling a fighter, aslong as this fighter represents a real and immediate threat to the Israeli armed forces.None of the reports gathered by the representatives of FIDH mention armed resistance against the IDF during the« Rainbow »operation. The Israeli forces also did not suffer any casualties during this operation. However, while some armed mendid use some houses to check on the Israeli army, this does not justify in any way such actions, taken by the Israeli army, that couldbe recorded by the FIDH mission. The methods used by the Israeli army to demolish houses along thePhiladelphi road,especiallyin the Bloc O district, are tantamount to systematic and indiscriminate demolition, with the indiscriminate hitting of military targetsand civil property. The Bloc O district was especially affected, and this has been the case ever since the 13thMay. A father whosehouse was destroyed relates as follows:«I live in a house in Bloc O with my wife, my sister and my five children. The previous day an armoured vehicle was blownup on the Philadelphi Road. There was a terrible explosion. Metal debris was thrown everywhere. My 66 year old sister wasinjured by one of these metal splinters. During the night , tanks and helicopters came firing missiles in all directions. Therewas panic. Some people came out of their houses with white flags and I brought out my family. There was a tank a hundredmeters away. It fired a shell at my house, and at other houses as well. No announcements had been made over theloudspeaker. We had not been told anything. All the children were screaming. There were dead and wounded. A quarter ofan hour later a bulldozer arrived and this completed the demolition of the houses. We were not able to save anything. As faras I was concerned, this was an act of reprisal against the blowing up of the vehicle the day before. We went to the school asI know the janitor and I know that UNWRA opens up the school if houses are demolished91.»Another Bloc O resident gave a systematic account of the demolition activity:« On the 13th May at about three o’clock in the morning , the bulldozers drove around the house Two bulldozers were inthe process of demolishing Abu Samir’s house. They stopped the demolition of another house and went towards mine. Twobulldozers approached from the South , two others from the North. My house was pushed over to Abu Samir’s and AbuSamir’s was pushed over to mine. Many had left the area just after the armoured vehicle had been blown up on PhiladelphiRoad. It was to be expected. They demolished the two rows of houses on both sides of the road. On the right side somehouses were demolished last April. There is only one house left standing92»

This kind of story is corroborated by facts appearing in OCHA’s last report and especially satellite images. The full extent of thedemolition work does not let you doubt the evidently indiscriminate nature of the attacks on the districts situated along the border andand of the systematic demolition of civilian property carried out in that area in breach of articles 51 and 52 of the Protocol I,additional to the Geneva Conventions.One other justification claimed by the Israeli army in support of this house demolition was to present this as a means of destroyingthe tunnels that these houses sheltered, and that allowed smuggling of, in particular, weapons from Egypt. In fact, this is the mainjustification put forward by the authorities in official statements. Yet, this could only partly explain why the demolition was carriedout: finding three tunnels cannot justify the demolition of 167 houses. Also, the flagrant contradiction between this justification andthe way in which the house demolition was done is only too evident: no house searches to eastablish the existence of tunnel entrancesor weapons were carried out before the demolition; in the vast majority of cases the IDF soldiers did not take the trouble to evenleave their tanks or bulldozers before they started the demolition work. In his reply to the questions asked by the mission, the Israeliarmy spokesman linked the reason for the « Rainbow » operation to the fact that there were tunnels being used for gun smugglingand also to the need to « uncover » these tunnels:«On May 18, 2004, the IDF began an operation to uncover weapon-smuggling tunnels. The operation began following a week inwhich Palestinians fired anti-tank missiles at army vehicles, resulting in the deaths of 11 IDF soldiers. These missiles were smuggledinto Gaza Strip via the tunnels, thus heightening the urgent need to operate against the infrastructure facilitating such weaponssmuggling tunnels»93.This justification also appears on the Internet sites of the Israeli government and army.94.However, when the demolition of houses is not preceded by any house searches whatsoever, the demolition cannot be explained by adesire to « uncover » tunnels : on the contrary, once they are buried under the rubble the « tunnel » entrances that the demolishedhouses are supposed to have sheltered become impossible to see. The explanation provided is therefore not convincing. What ismore, although a significant part of the demolition work had been carried out in those districts running alongside the internationalborder with Egypt, only some hundred or so meters away from the border – which makes you think that tunnels could have been dugright up to the houses - , there had been other demolition work done on houses that were too far away from the border to make tunneldigging possible. As an example, 11 houses were demolished at Tel al-Sultan, but the distance separating this district from the border(about 600 meters) excludes the possibility of a tunnel connecting these two places, especially as the ground in this area is sandy,making it impossible to build a tunnel for technical reasons. The IDF spokesman has not answered the following question which theFIDH asked on 15thJune 2004: «Which military objective was served by the destruction or damaging of civilian infrastructures inTel al-Sultan, in the North-Eastern part of Rafah ?». This question still remains. Finally, as the special envoy for the Human RightsCommission of the United Nations, M.J. Dugard, has pointed out in his report of the 27thFebruary 2004, one can wonder whysurveys done in the area between the border and the approaches to the town of Rafah were not enough to pinpoint possible tunnels inthe area, and these tunnels could then be filled in so making them unusable95.The argument tending to justify the demolition of the houses based on the need to uncover tunnels that these houses had beensheltering does not match the actual situation that the FIDH mission representatives experienced in the field. Also, by resorting tothis justification the Israeli army are incorrectly interpreting International Humanitarian Law, although this law has been invoked atthis precise juncture by the IDF. The principle of the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in effect prohibits a number of clearlyspaced out and distinct military objectives in a town or an area with a similar concentration of civil property being treated as a singlemilitary objective (art. 51, §5, a), of the Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions. This means that few tunnels cannot justifythe demolition of several dozen houses. In accordance with the same principle - the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks - attacks thatare expected to cause damage to civil property that would be excessive in relation to the clear and direct military advantage gainedare prohibited (article 51 §5, b), of Protocol I). The Israeli armed forces, while refraining from revealing the precise location –confusing the FIDH representatives,- they claim that they had discovered, during the « Rainbow » operation, three tunnels – in fact ,two completed tunnels and a 8 meter hole96. During this operation, 167 houses were demolished. The demolition appears evidentlyexcessive in relation to the military advantage gained.The IDF spokesman finally cited that , in some cases, army tanks had to leave the road and cross private property so as not to run therisk of landing on mines placed under the tracks of tanks by Palestinian militants. This is particularly the case when there wasdemolition work in the northern part of the Brazil district. The FIDH mission was not able to verify these claims, and in particularwhether there were any mines. However, the mission observed that the civilian vehicles or ambulances used these roads without anyreport of any vehicles being blown up. However, it does appear, when you compare the route taken by the army tanks and the otherpossible access roads that the tanks did not choose the routes causing the least damage to civil property, whether this was housing orland under cultivation. On the contrary, it would appear that the tanks sometimes deliberately made a diversion away from theirroute to destroy some of the civil property situated nearby, without any apparent reason.

Violation of the prohibition on collective punishmentOfficially, the Israeli army admitted the demolition of 56 « structures » during the « Rainbow » operation : 20 houses have beendestroyed because they were situated near tunnels ; 29 houses have been destroyed in other districts where the army operated ; and 7other houses have been destroyed as reprisals against the attack on a family of settlers in the North of the Gaza Strip (the house of theperson who had perpetrated the attack and 6 other houses located in the surrounding area97.). It should be noted that the latest list ofreasons that has been provided to substantiate the demolition activity during the operation did not appear in the letters sent by theIDF spokesperson to the FIDH, by the end of the mission. It is particularly difficult to justify these reasons for the house demolitions.It would be appropriate to recall that on the 14thMay and then on the 17thMay, the United Nations Secretary General called on Israelto stop immediately such collective punishment. The Special Representative from the Human Rights Commission declared that as faras he was concerned, those acts perpetrated in Rafah «[…] also amount to collective punishment which violate both humanitarian lawand international human rights law98. It is impossible to accept the Israeli argument that these actions are justified by militarynecessity. On the contrary, in the wording of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they are ‘carried out unlawfully andwantonly»99UNRWA estimate that 167 houses were destroyed during the « Rainbow » operation.

Precautionary measuresThis report has already mentioned the text relating to the obligation to take precautions prescribed by Protocol I additional to theGeneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. By virtue of article 57,§1 of the aforementioned Protocol, military operations have to beconducted whilst ensuring constantly that property of a civil nature is spared. Precautionary measures as prescribed by article 57apply to those who are preparing or determining the attack to do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked areneither civilian nor civilian objects, but indeed a military objective , and to refrain from launching any attack which may be expectedto cause incidental loss of civilian life, damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and directmilitary advantage anticipated (art. 57 § 2, a)). Also, the spirit of the regulations implies that neutralising the military objective ispreferable to its destruction100.As the mission representatives had already noted, many accounts gathered indicated that houses had been demolished without anyprior search in order to check whether the houses were hiding a tunnel. On the contrary, in many cases, the houses have beendemolished arbitrarily. A resident in the town of Brazil described the demolition that has been carried out in his street which is 350meters from the border; i.e in an area that is too far away to be able to contain the entrance to a tunnel :« It was Thursday and I knew that there had been some demolition activity in my district. I wanted to go there but it wasimpossible to enter the district. When I was able to go, my house had been demolished with others. Over an area of 100meters, 10 houses had been demolished. In my house there lived 9 people. This was a collective demolition. My house was350 meters from the border. My future is desperate. I am waiting to be re-housed. »101.The story from another resident in Brazil confirms the random way in which some of the demolitions were carried out without checksbeing made:«It was 9a.m. I brought home on my shoulders a neighbour of 85 years of age who lived between Abu Ahmed and ourselves, while the demolition of his house was in progress. We could hear Abu Ahmed’s cries. My window overlooks hishouse. They began to demolish our kitchen, while the women were in it. Everybody started to cry. We came down. Thebulldozer approached from the other side . The bulldozer lifted up our car and blocked the gate with the car. We could notcome out because of the tanks. I called the Red Crescent . With the help of a metal ladder we managed to get to aneighbour’s house. And the bulldozer demolished everything after we left. This lasted a few minutes. The bulldozer did notgo back to the street but continued towards another house. There were 9 tanks in the street ; They doid not give us any timeor warning. We came out with white scarves and the soldiers asked us to raise our hands; we walked between the tanks. Icarried the old man of 85 ; he was unable to walk. We walked like this to the second street and there an ambulance took usto Al Najjar. In our block of houses, 9 houses were demolished and they left two or three houses standing; everybody hasbeen affected. Here, we are 800 meters away from the border ».102.These words were heard at the places where the demolition took place. The members of the mission were able to confirm, on thebasis of the course taken by the bulldozer, that the demolition work was not prompted by a tunnel search nor for a search for weaponsor armed insurgents. Excessively high buildings of more than three stores high appeared to be spared from demolition. The decisionas to which houses be destroyed was an arbitrary one with no connection with the obvious objective. The demolition was done withno attempt to check for the existence of tunnels or weapons. This account and the following one like so many others illustrate arecurrent feature of the house demolition by the Israeli army - the lack of any prior warning given to the population. :

« I live in the Brazil district in a house with my seven children and my mother who is old and infirm. I am 800 meters fromthe Egyptian border. This place is quiet. On Wednesday the 18thMay, the tanks arrived at about 8 .30 p.m. They encircledthe district approaching from two directions : the gate of Salah El Din and the cemetery gate. There were tanks, onebulldozer and helicopters with snipers. There was no order over the loud speaker for a curfew or to announce the housedemolition. On the other hand all the residents lay low in their houses.On Thursday 19,at about 7.30 a.m, I heard the bulldozer. It was 50 meters away and in five minutes time it had arrived infront of my home and had knocked down the front of the house. I just had the time to leave with the children through anentrance I had made with the help of my neighbours at the back of the house. I took my mother, who is 80 years old andunable to move herself, in my arms. My wife took the children and we went to our neighbour’s house 100 meters away. Westayed there for a day and a half because of the curfew. I tried to shout out to the driver of the bulldozer to stop. It was awoman. Then a tank fired on my house – it had already been demolished. When the curfew was lifted, I went to School B[the UNRWA one] - because my house had already been demolished by the Israeli army in 1967 at Rafah and because eversince I have had a UNWRA card and I know that schools are places of refuge.[…]In the street, 14 houses were demolished.»103.It also emerges from this account as in the following account that , in some cases, the bulldozers and the tanks started the demolitionwhile the residents were still inside their homes. According to amother resident in Brazil,« On the 19thMay, the attack on Brazil began at 9.00 p.m. The people living beside the border moved off because they werefrightened of the tanks. They went off towards Shabura. I saw the tanks arriving ; this was the first time that they had comefrom that direction, from Djnina , thedistrict to the borth-east of Brazil. They were planning a siege. We heard the sound ofhelicopters and tanks. We stayed the whole night long at home with this going on around us. At 8.00 a.m., we heard on theradio that the Israelis were in the process of demolishing Abu Ahmed"s house (he 75 years old), two houses away from here.The telephone rang, people were calling me to find out what the news was. I was trying to find out. I heard the cries ofwomen and I tried to see what was happening through the window which looks out on to the srtreet. Just as I was looking atank pointed its gun and I ran to the back of the house . The tanks were everywhere around us.A bulldozer started todemolish the house of Abu Ahmed. There were also shots fired in the direction of this house [..]. At our house, a bulldozerstarted to demolish the front rooms, it also fired at the mounds of debris. The driver told us to go back in to the back room,but we were scared, we put ourselves in a place of shelter and in a place where we could be seen. There were two men onthe bulldozer, one was sitting, the other was standing with a gun, they were laughing. My brother asked the the women tomake white flags, the driver of the bulldozer laughed.. He sounded the horn of the bulldozer and waved to us to leave thehouse. One of the men tried to talk to the driver of the tank that was behind the bulldozer, but the bulldozer completed thedemolition work. There were 5 women and 15 children.We left for School B, 2 and a half kilometers from here, where we arrived at about 11.30 a.m. »104.From what is heard from the accounts reported, it is relevant to question the statements made by the Israeli army press office statingthat « Throughout the operation, and as a guiding rule, no structure is ever demolished while innocent civilians are still inside, andwere not warned of the upcoming demolition »105.. The type of demolitions done with no warning and that was reported to the FIDHmission representatives, and confirmed by many matching accounts, is prohibited formally by the Protocol I additional to the GenevaConventions. Included among the precautionary measures, this protocol prescribes that « where an attack has the capability ofaffecting the civilian population , a warning has to be given in good time and by effective means , unless circumstance do not permitthis » (article 57 § 2, c))The demolition works carried out in the districts that are adjacent to the border, but also those carried out in the areas of Rafah thatare further away from the border (Tel al Sultan or Brazil), are tantamount to demolition activity that is perhaps systematic, perhapsarbitrary and prohibited by international humanitarian law, Also, by proceeding to demolish property of a civilian nature - more thana hundred or so houses in Rafah – the Israeli army has clearly violated articles 51 § 8 and 57 § 2 of the Protocol I, that require thatprecautionary measures be taken to spare civilian property.The demolition of houses during the « Rainbow » operation constitutes a breach of the international humanitarian law that applies toOccupied Palestinian Territory. However, this demolition activity also constitutes a violation of current international human rightslegislation by Israel. This demolition activity constitutes forced eviction, as defined by the United Nations Committee on economic,social and cultural rights, which is defined as:“The permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/orland which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. Theprohibition on forced evictions does not, however, apply to evictions carried out by force in accordance with the law and inconformity with the provisions of the International Covenants on Human Rights.”106.The Committee on economic, social and cultural rights has noted that the prohibition on forced evictions that ensues from article 11,§ 1stof the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights complements the international humanitarian legislation

provisions that aim to protect private property107:Forced eviction and house demolition as a punitive measure are (…) inconsistent with the norms of the Covenant. Likewise,the Committee takes note of the obligations enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocols thereto of 1977concerning prohibitions on the displacement of the civilian population and the destruction of private property as these relateto the practice of forced eviction.The Committee on economic, social and cultural rights subordinates forced evictions to compliance with strict conditions, includingsituations where these evictions can be justified, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on economic, social andcultural rights, as measures that are strictly necessary for achieving objectives of general interest108:States parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasiblealternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the needto use force Legal remedies or procedures should be provided to those who are affected by eviction orders. States partiesshall also see to it that all the individuals concerned have a right to adequate compensation for any property, both personaland real, which is affected. In this respect, it is pertinent to recall article 2.3 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, which requires States parties to ensure “an effective remedy” for persons whose rights have been violatedand the obligation upon the “competent authorities (to) enforce such remedies when granted”.The reference to the demand to guarantee a useful remedy to the parties involved, provided by article 2 § 3 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, can be explained by the fact that forced evictions can be summarized as being aninterference the right to respect the home guaranteed by article 17 of the said Covenant. Taking into consideration the breaches,that forced evictions risk causing, of a large number of recognized rights in the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights, the Committee on economic, social and cultural rights has drawn up the following conditions :« Appropriate procedural protection and due process are essential aspects of all human rights but are especially pertinent inrelation to a matter such as forced evictions which directly invokes a large number of the rights recognized in both theInternational Covenants on Human Rights. The Committee considers that the procedural protections which should beapplied in relation to forced evictions include: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequateand reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposedevictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be madeavailable in reasonable time to all those affected; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, government officialsor their representatives to be present during an eviction; (e) all persons carrying out the eviction to be properly identified;(f) evictions not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g)provision of legal remedies; and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redressfrom the courts. ».As the reference made by the ‘Committee on economic, social and cultural rights indicates in the General Comment n�7 (the right toadequate housing) relating to forced eviction’ to the obligations imposed by the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and theProtocol additional in the context of armed conflicts or to the obligations imposed on the occupying power, the Committee had inparticular in mind a situation such as the one presented by the Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. It is now clearly evidentthat the stated guarantees have not been kept. The conditions under which the house demolition was carried out - with no priorwarning being given and with no administrative decision whatsoever being made by the occupying power – render, in the majority ofcases, the bringing of an appeal to stop the demolition as fanciful. It is in only in these exceptional circumstances that Palestinianfamilies, facing the threat of seeing their houses demolished and in view of the military operations started by the IDF, have been ableto apply to the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice for the suspension of this demolition. Except in someisolated decisions, the Court has nevertheless legitimised these demolitions, systematically lining up behind arguments that are basedon « military needs » so justifying the demolition activity and abandoning any demands to comply with certain proceduralconditions, especially the possibility of families involved to appeal against the demolition before they have finished. Also, theresidents are not informed of the identity of the people carrying out the demolition work. The families do not receive any informationas to the reason which the military authorities claim to provide. There is an impediment to them being able to effectively claimcompensation for damages or to bring an action. If there is no change to this legal environment, the arbitrary demolitions, whichseriously undermine respect for the right of domicile, private and family life and constitutes a negation of the right to an adequateaccommodation as guaranteed by article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, will continue.FIDH requested that no further house demolition take place before basic legal guarantees, that need to cover such demolition activity,are formally recognised.During its investigations at Rafah, the FIDH mission met many families directly affected by the house demolitions. Most of thevictims were women and children. Often awakened by the noise of tanks and bulldozers beginning their demolishing work, they wereforced to leave their houses in the middle of the night. Even when the demolition work was taking place during the day they wereobliged to leave in a hurry, only taking with them a few necessary papers and leaving behind all their personal things. The traumasuffered is considerable. This is why the United Nations Committee against torture, which monitors compliance by party States -which includes Israel – of the obligations imposed by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading107

The demolition of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian populationIn international humanitarian law, the objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population also enjoy specific protection.Article 54 of Protocol I, additional to the Geneva Conventions, prescribes that « it is prohibited to attack, to destroy, remove orrender useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the productionof foodstuffs […] drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works […], for the specific purpose of denying them fortheir sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians,to cause them to move away or for any other motive ». This prohibition is especially important in the Gaza Strip as, since theuprising of the second intifada in September 2000, it has become practically impossible for almost all the residents in the enclave towork in Israel ; this has increased the dependence of the population on agriculture. In these circumstances, the destruction of plots ofcultivated land, the uprooting of olive trees or other fruit trees, the demolition of greenhouses – all types of destruction for whichthere is no military justification – constitute a violation of the right to food and it is up to the Israeli authorities to justify their action.Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, by guarantees the right of each person to adequatefood requires that States Parties to the Covenant abstain from taking any taking ‘any measures that result in preventing suchaccess’110.In total, during the «Rainbow » operation, about 50% of agricultural land in the Governorate of Rafah was destroyed. In West Rafah,more than 70% of horticultural greenhouses were completely demolished. In East Rafah, about 30% of the greenhouses andagricultural land were destroyed. More than 70% of the electricity supply system was damaged at Tel al-Sultan and Brazil. One ofthe effects of this damage was the lack of drinking water throughout Rafah, all the wells being located in these two districts.

VII. The use of « human shields »During the siege of Tel al Sultan, the Israeli army occupied various family houses so as to be able to post inside soldiers armed withhigh precision weapons; the population called them « snipers ».In order to make advance through the district the Israeli soldiersmoved mainly at night and by using human shields to « protect » them . Hesham Al Karazon, a lawyer by profession and a father ofnine children , recalls that some twenty soldiers surrounded his house on the 28thMay at 3.oo a.m. He was then forced to walkbefore the soldiers as they advanced, threatened with a weapon:«They stayed there until 5 p.m. They then asked me to go with them, and tied up my hands with plastic explosive. The soldierwho tied up my hands was nervous, he asked the officerIs he wanted for anything?The officer gave a sign as if to say noA bulldozer arrived and began to demolish the northern face of the house. All the soldiers were getting ready to leave thehouse. The demolition then followed for an hour. The officer in charge explained to the bulldozer driver how it shouldmanoeuvre to make the hole. Then a tank entered the house to pick up the soldiers. A part of the tank entered the 6 m room.In the tank there wereonedozen of men; they were all crammed in. The tank started to move - this lasted three hours. Itdestroyed the gate of a house. They ordered me to climb down and to walk in front of them; a weapon was pointed at myneck. I went into Ismail Abu Rahaj’s house. It is a three-storey building 100 meters away from my home. But at that precisemoment, I was not aware where I was. It was 9.30-10.00 p.m. We went up to the first floor, as down below there is a mini-supermarket. The first floor was empty. They forced me to walk around, shouting out « Is anyone there?». The other soldierscompleted a tour of the second and third floors. They gathered up everyone on the ground floor, about 15 people (men,women and children) and the same type of demolition began, destroying the tiling; etc.. They broke the windows, bored holesin the walls.They untied me once the situation was under control, at about 11 p.m. At about 2.00 or3.00 a.m , they asked me to go withthem, that is to say about 10 soldiers. We walked towards the house belonging to the Bayiomi family , 50 meters away. Theywalked alongthe walls, I walked in front with a rifle pointed at my neck. The door of the house was forced. The soldiers saidto meGo in and call them !.They were not looking for anyone ; they wanted to occupy the house. There were three or four stories , and we ended thenight on the third floor. We stayed there from Wednesday morning to Wednesday evening, then they tied up our hands, myhands and the hands ofBayioumi's son. A tank arrived , and it opened up a hole to let it half way in. We climbed on to thetank with our eyes blindfolded ».According to article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, « the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certainpoints or areas immune from military operations».The holding of Hesham Al Kharazon and the treatment inflicted on him constitutea violation of the international humanitarian law provisions prohibiting the use of civilians for protecting military operations. Thistype of practice shows more generally the violation of the protection of civilians from dangers resulting from military operationsbeing violated, which must be understood as a « general, effective protection », which rules shall be observed « in allcircumstances »111.

VIII. Obstacles to medical aidAs underlined above in the report, a number of ambulances but also the medical personnel and even a clinic were attacked by theIsraeli army. The prohibition on attacks on personnel and the health service facilities requires that buildings, vehicles and peopleworking to provide medical aid be respected and protected.The accounts by ambulance staff of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) reveal that regulation health vehicles, marked withclear signs were targeted:« Since the day before (the 13thMay 2004, at about 3 p.m.), there were some missiles fired on the district. In that situation,you place yourself beforehand near the areas where you assume that you will have to do something. That day (the 14thMay,at about 4.30 p.m.), three of our ambulances were positioned near the area. At one point, there were missile shots. It hadbecome dangerous because everyone was fleeing and running in all directions. Then Fathi (the driver) and I decided to goand seek more shelter by placing ourselves near our colleagues" ambulance. As it was a little more quiet there and therewere no crowds , we called the two others on the radio (M and H) in the third ambulance to join us. From where we were wecould see two Apaches [helicopters] and a « drone ». We knew that there were tanks in the nearby streets but we could notsee them. Our colleagues had joined us in front of the grocer’s shop. We were sitting on the ground and asked the grocerfor water and I was just about to have a drink when a missile landed . I was flat on my stomach with no understanding how Igot there. There was dust everywhere. There was so much dust that we could not breathe. People were running everywhereto find cover but also to come to our aid because from the end of the street where the UNRWA clinic is situated everyonethought we were dead. In order to avoid forming a crowd that might become a target , we got up and rushed as best we couldinto the the ambulance. I was injured in the right leg. I had receivedsome missile projectiles and bits of wall. Fathi evacuated us to an area that was a little less dangerous so that he could lookat my wound. I cast a quick glance downwards and as there was some smoke I became frightened and started to cry out .Fathi he did some bandaging . We were very scared. We were all the more scared as we did not expect to be taken for atarget as we had taken the precaution of moving away from the line of fire »112.A nurse witnessed some events that took place at Tel al-Sultan from 17 or 18 May. While the Israeli army was laying siege to thedistrict and shutting off any access to Tel al-Sultan, tanks started to demolish a part of the clinic, just as the medical staff werecoming under fire from the army :« As the rumour of an imminent attack on Tel al-Sultan went the rounds, preparations had been made to open up the clinic'semergency service 24 hours/24 hours (normally we open 12 hours/12 hours) since the day before (17thMay 2004). To us itwas rather a surprise because we knew that the IDF usually would look for tunnels but the sub-soil right up to Egypt is sand[making it impracticable to dig a tunnel]. So, the objective must have been something else.That night, I had reported for duty on Monday at 8.00a.m. I returned home at 2.30 p.m. and returned in the evening at7.00p.m to prepare for emergencies. Up until 1.00 p.m. there was nothing out of the ordinary. There were just helicoptersflying around. At about 4.00 a.m. (we were having our morning prayers) missiles were fired on the mosque opposite. Therewas an electricity supply failure. We got out torches, then candles and lit the gas lamps. We were so scared that we knockedthem over and broke them. There were two tanks parked just besides us. They fired. We were very scared. A quarter of anhour later, we heard a big explosion. The windows had been blown in by the explosion. There were two tanks parked oneach side of the clinic and the noise we heard was the tank ramming the outside wall of the clinic. There had been nowarning and sub machine gun fire was directed into the inside. It continued to move forwards and demolished the wall of thepharmacy. You can see the broken window and the impact of the bullets on the wall. We were about nine meters away fromthe barrel. We took the gas lamp and ran to hide ourselves right at the back of the infirmary. This was the safest room. Wewere in a state of extreme fear and stress. We expected to be killed at any moment. The ambulance staff there at the time inthe corner saw that there were two tanks and a bulldozer. They tried to avoid the tanks but this was impossible, they wereeverywhere and they had returned. Opposite there was a sniper on the roof. He could see us moving around with the lampsand could fire on sight »113.Moreover, on 20 May in Brazil, an authorised ambulance was buried in the sand aand the rubble by two bulldozers on the Israeliarmy. The ambulance driver gives an account :« I was in contact with the DCO. I followed the DCO's instructions until I approached the house, about 50 meters away. Wewere also in touch with the family. There were two tanks in front of the house , one in front of the door and the other besideit in the street near the mosque. I called the DCO to tell them that people in the house could not leave it. The DCO told meto wait. The tank fired a burst of sub-machine gun fire at a spot just beside me. I ran back to the crossroads in contact withthe DCO explaining that there were shots being fired. The DCO ordered me to wait. This was about 10.30 a.m. or11.00 a.m.A bulldozer had blocked off the road behind us with some sand and all exits were shut off. Another bulldozer approached mefrom the other side and began to blow its horn. I thought that I should give way to it and that it wanted to remove the sandthat blocked the road. Its horn blew increasingly louder and I did not know why. It began to force me towards the sand dun .My ambulance was blocked by the dune. It fired on us (I was with two volunteers). I was in contact with the DCO when thebulldozer pushed me aside. I was stuck in the sand. The bulldozer began to pour sand on to the ambulance . We were stuck. Iwaited to die. We stayed for an hour and a quarter in the sand. I tried to do everything : to contact the DCO who did not112113

receive any news through the Israelis; to contact another ambulance to contact the CICR »All of these accounts reported that hospitals, vehicles and the staff involved in protecting and caring for the sick and injured weretargeted by the Israeli armed forces. These forces have since then infringed a whole raft of important provisions of internationalhumanitarian legislation that requires genuine inviolability of health establishments and units, as well as the protection of the medicalstaff. Article18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prescribes in effect that « civil hospitals set up to care for the wounded, the sick,the infirm and women in labour cannot in any circumstances be subject to attack ; they will at all time be respected by those parties inconflict with one another ». As far as the staff in the hospitals are concerned article 20 in the same Convention is worded as follows :« Staff regularly and solely assigned to the running and the administration of civil hospitals , including staff involved in research,picking up, transport and treatment of the civilian injured and sick, the infirm and women in labour will be respected and protected ».Article 21 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that the convoys of vehicles « conveying wounded and sick civilians...shall berespected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals[…] ». This provision has been violated on numerous occasions by theIsraeli State when gunshots or even bulldozers have prevented ambulances from proceeding. Article 15 of Protocol I has also beenviolated , in particular paragraph 3, which requires « the Occupying Power shall afford civilian medical personnel in occupiedterritories every assistance to enable them to perform...their humanitarian functions». It is appropriate to add to the acts of violencereported above the facts relating to the coordinated effort that was refused or delayed114.. In any case, the delays forced on thecoordinated effort cannot be compared to the control and security measures as prescribed by § 4 of the same article. The emergencyfirst aid services but also the emergency funeral services are, under the terms of article 62 of Protocol I, «entitled to perform theircivil defence tasks except in case of imperative military necessity ». On 18 May , at Tel al Sultan, more than 4 hours were required toclear the bodies of two children who were killed on the roof of their home. The brother of the two victims gives the account :« The two bodies remained there in the room for 4 hours. We called the Red Crescent , we called for an ambulance on theradio. That was Radio Chebab. Azmi Bichara [deputy arable member of the Knesset] called us even, he promised anambulance in ten minutes. He called [the Israeli Minister of Defence, Mr Shaul] Mofaz…The ambulance arrived 4 hourslater, with four other bodies inside, They were lying one on top of the other. They tried to carry out a coordinated effort forthe funeral arrangements, However all coordinated activity was forbidden. My father asked his cousins to bury them at thecemetery ».The fact that the evacuation of the wounded and the bodies of dead people was prevented constitutes an obstacle to the execution ofhumanitarian tasks aimed at protecting the population from the dangers of hostilities and aimed at overcoming their immediateeffects. The closing of theSufa Morag checkpointhad similar consequences , in particular on 19 May when the bodies and thewounded that were surging into the An- Najjar hospital following the bombing of the demonstration could not be moved to thehospitals to the North of Rafah. These obstacles on the way of medical assistance do not only constitute breaches of internationalhumanitarian legislation. They can lead to a breach of the right to health as guaranteed by article 21 of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights ; the Committee of independent experts responsible for ensuring that this Covenant is observedhas noted for example thatThe State can evade the obligation to observe any provisions through actions, policies or even laws contrary to the standardsstated at article 12 of the Agreement and likely to undermine the well being of the person, to cause incapacity, and deathwhich it would be possible to prevent. One can cite as an example the denial of access to health facilities and to other variousgoods and services relating to health suffered by certain individuals and groups.115.Apart from the health and medical aid , the protection of civilians that are subject to armed conflict suggests that these civilians canbe provided with food and other essential commodities for survival. During the rainbow operation , UNRWA, WHO, and CICR andmany NGOs gave warning of the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Rafah and of the lack of drinking water and food.Humanitarian convoys from these various organisations were delayed or were prevented from continuing116. Article 23 of the FourthGeneva Convention requires that free passage be given to any drugs being despatched and that it be authorised to despatch essentialfoodstuffs, and clothes etc. Where the civilian population cannot be adequately provided for « the occupying Power will agree toassistance to help the population and will ensure that this aid is provided as far as possible.117». By delaying the humanitarian aidthat was on its way to Rafah and by refusing humanitarian aid to enter Tel al Sultan118, the Israeli army has clearly violated theobligations that are incumbent to it by virtue of international humanitarian legislation.It has not been possible to establish with accuracy the number of victims who, during the « Rainbow » operation , could have beensaved if the Israeli armed forces had helped along, as they were obliged to do, the transportation of the wounded. It is clear howeverthat such situations took place. The Palestinian population saw those obstacles to access to medical aid as being purely annoying, andan additional demonstration of the collective punitive policy carried out against itbythe occupying Israeli power. This view is sharedby several of the representatives of United Nations agencies in the field, that the mission representatives came across.

•Stop immediately its policy of house demolitions by the Israeli Defence Forces and to draw up an appropriate legalframework, in accordance with the international obligations of the State of Israel, before any further demolition activity. Such a legalframework must in particular provide for prior notification of the decision to carry out any further demolition, together with anexplanation relating to the military necessities that justify this in the eyes of the authorities, and the possibility of appealing againstthis decision, before a court recognized the power to suspend the decision to proceed to demolitions.•Prepare, before any incursion of the Israeli Defence Forces in to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a humanitarian planthat implements the obligation to take precautionary measures following from article 57 of the Protocol I additional to the GenevaConventions of 12 August 1949. Such a plan should especially include provisions relating to the evacuation of the wounded in areasof operation to hospitals that are equipped and with the required capability as well as an accurate description of the militaryobjectives being pursued; this would allow an assessment as to whether the means chosen are appropriate and proportionate withregard to the military objectives pursued, and whether the objectives designated as targets have been adequately chosen.•During the « Rainbow » operation, the residents of Rafah have suffered from arbitrary deprivation of life. This must lead toa prompt, independent, and impartial investigation, which should be launched as soon as possible. The investigation must be in thehands of an instance recognized the necessary powers to conduct it effectively. The FIDH requests to be informed of theinvestigations which the Rainbow operation will lead to, as well as of the conclusions these investigations lead to. This applies inparticular to the firing of shells on the demonstrators at the North-East Rafah exit on Wednesday 19thMay 2004, but also to theexecutions of civilians during the curfew at Tel al Sultan between the 18thand the 20thMay120.•As an organ of the State, the Judiciary of Israel is bound by its international obligations. It must therefore contribute to thefull compliance with these obligations, within the boundaries of its attributed powers. The judiciary should remind the Chief of Staffof the IDF of the obligations which the international treaties it has ratified impose on Israel. The judiciary should also facilitatecompliance with these international obligations by specifying in detail the implications these obligations may have, in the context ofoperations carried out by the armed forces.The FIDH recommends that the members of the IDF receive improved training in international humanitarian law, and thatthe highest military and civilian authorities publicly reaffirms their commitment to ensure that this law is complied with in fieldoperations.

Decree an embargo on weapons destined for Israel as suggested by the UN Human Rights Commission Special Representativefor the Occupied Palestinian Territories.– Impose an embargo on equipment used for demolition of houses by the Israeli armed forces. The United States, where CaterpillarInc. is located , has a particular responsibility in this regard; Caterpillar provides Israel with bulldozers with which the IDF carryout the house demolition work that has already been recorded. It is inconsistent to condemn this demolition activity and not totake any steps, against an economic player over which the United States has some influence, to discourage it continuing thisaction.The FIDH notes that Caterpillar, Inc, is incorporated and has its headquarters in the United States of America. As such, it is civillyliable under the Alien Tort Claims Act 1789 (28 U.S.C 1350) for any damage caused to non-US citizens by the violation of the lawof nations which it may have committed. Under the precedent set in other cases presented to the US federal courts, its joint actionwith the Israeli Government, to which Caterpillar Inc. sells bulldozers while knowing that they shall be used to demolish houses asprohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention, may imply such a liability. Caterpillar Inc. is requested to cease immediately itsrelationship with the Israeli Government.– Give mandate to international observers in the field, to report the actions of each of the parties in a comprehensive and objectivemanner. These observers should be given a guarantee of safety by both parties and an unrestricted freedom to move throughoutthe whole of the occupied territories should be guaranteed. There should be a sufficient number of them to be able to observerigorously all significant developments in the field.– Decide to send in an international protection force mandated to prevent a continuation of the violations and to ensure theimplementation of adequate Security Council resolutions, only possible condition for restoring peace in the region. The sendingof such a force is part of the obligation by States party to the Fourth Geneva Convention to “take measures necessary for thesuppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the (...) Convention”.– Demand from Israel total reimbursement of the additional costs faced by UNRWA following the demolition of houses and for theobligation it had to meet in providing humanitarian care and re housing of the victims involved. It is unusual and inconsistent thatIsrael can with complete impunity continue to let the international community, by way of UNRWA, bear the heavy budgetaryburden of a policy of destroying civil property, a policy that is being pursued in violation of international law.– Prosecute those who are responsible for war crimes. Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August1949, extendedby article 85 of Protocol I addendum of 1977, imposes an obligation on States party to these Conventions to search for andprosecute people guilty of war crimes. It is unacceptable that those responsible for the crimes condemned in this report, and innumerous reports that have preceded it, continue to take advantage of their immunity from punishment.

Paris, 15 June 2004,To Israeli Defense Forces Spokesperson UnitRe: International Federation for Human Rights mission to the Gaza strip - June 2004The International Federation for Human Rights is an international non-governmental organisation created in 1922, which hasconsultative status with the United Nations, the UNESCO, and the Council of Europe, of which 142 human rights organisationsare members, covering all the regions of the world. In June 2004, a mission of the FIDH conducted an investigation into the"Rainbow operation" led by the Israeli Defence Forces in Rafah (16 May-24 May). This set of questions has been prepared for theIDF upon the suggestion of the officer whom the mission could speak to, but who was unable to answer a number of questionswhich were submitted to him. The FIDH is extremely grateful to the IDF authorities for their cooperation. It would request ananswer for Wednesday, June 23. The answers may be sent either by telefax to the FIDH (00 33 - 1 43 55 18 80), or by e-mail toMs Stéphanie David, [email protected].1- At which date was the "Rainbow" operation decided?2- What was the purpose of the operation when it was decided?3- In the view of the Israeli authorities, was the operation successful, i.e., did it adequately fulfil its objectives?4- Which military objective was served by the destruction or damaging of civilian infrastructures in Tal-es-Sultan, in the North-Eastern part of Rafah?5- The investigation mission of the FIDH examined in particular the demolition of houses in Rafah. Were the inhabitants of thehouses targeted by those demolitions given previous warning, and did they have time to prepare themselves to leave?6- Which houses were targeted for demolition in Rafah?7- We understand that the "Rainbow" operation led the IDF to uncover three tunnels through which smuggling could have takenplace from Egypt. Where precisely were these tunnels located?8- Were wanted persons or others arrested during the "Rainbow" operation? In the affirmative, how many arrestations took placeduring the operation? On which basis are these arrests justified?9- Did the Israeli Defence Forces suffer any casualty during the "Rainbow" operation?

Human Rights organisationsChine-HumanRights in ChinaColombie-ComitePermanente por laDefensa de los Derechos HumanosColombie-CorporacionColectivo deAbogados Jose Alvear RestrepoColombie-InstitutoLatinoamericano deServicios Legales AlternativosCongo Brazzaville-ObservatoireCongolais des Droits de L'HommeCôte d'Ivoire-LigueIvoirienne des Droitsde L'HommeCôte d'Ivoire-MouvementIvoirien desDroits de L'HommeCroatie-CivicCommittee for HumanRightsCuba-ComisionCubana de DerechosHumanos y Reconciliacion NationalEcosse-ScottishHuman Rights CentreEgypte-EgyptianOrganization for HumanRightsEgypte-HumanRights Association forthe Assistance of PrisonersEl Salvador-Comisionde DerechosHumanos de El SalvadorEquateur-Centrode DerechosEconomicos y SocialesEquateur-ComisionEcumenica deDerechos HumanosEquateur-FundacionRegional deAsesoria en Derechos HumanosEspagne-AsociacionPro DerechosHumanosEspagne-Federacionde Asociaciones deDefensa y Promocion de los DerechosHumanosEtats Unis-Centerfor ConstitutionalRightsEthiopie-EthiopanHuman RightsCouncilFinlande-FinnishLeague for HumanRightsFrance-Liguedes Droits de L'Homme etdu CitoyenGeorgie-HumanRights Information andDocumentation CenterGrèce-LigueHellenique des Droits deL'HommeGuatemala-CentroPara la Accion Legalen Derechos HumanosGuatemala-Comisionde DerechosHumanos de GuatemalaGuinée-OrganisationGuineenne pour laDefense des Droits de L'HommeGuinée Bissau-LigaGuineense dosDireitos do HomenIrak (Royaume Uni)-IraqiNetwork forHuman Rights Culture and DevelopmentIran-Centredes Defenseurs des Droitsde L'Homme en IranIran (France)-Liguede Defense desDroits de L'Homme en IranIrlande-IrishCouncil for Civil LibertiesIrlande du Nord-CommitteeOn theAdministration of JusticeIsrael-AdalahIsrael-Associationfor Civil Rights inIsraelIsrael-B'tselemIsrael-PublicCommittee Against Torturein IsraelItalie-LigaItaliana Dei Diritti Dell'uomoItalie-UnioneForense Per la Tutela DeiDiritti Dell'uomoJordanie-AmmanCenter for HumanRights StudiesJordanie-JordanSociety for HumanRightsKenya-KenyaHuman RightsCommissionKosovo-Conseilpour la Defense desDroits de L'Homme et des LibertesKyrgistan-KyrgyzCommittee for HumanRightsLettonie-LatvianHuman RightsCommitteeLiban-AssociationLibanaise des Droitsde L'HommeLiban-Foundationfor Human andHumanitarian Rights in LebanonLiban-PalestinianHuman RightsOrganizationLiberia-LiberiaWatch for Human RightsLibye (Suisse)-LibyanLeague forHuman RightsLithuanie-LithuanianHuman RightsAssociationMalaisie-SuaramMali-AssociationMalienne des Droits deL'HommeMalte-MaltaAssociation of HumanRightsMaroc-AssociationMarocaine des DroitsHumainsMaroc-OrganisationMarocaine desDroits HumainsMauritanie-AssociationMauritaniennedes Droits de L'HommeMexique-ComisionMexicana deDefensa y Promocion de los DerechosHumanosMexique-LigaMexicana por la Defensade los Derechos HumanosMoldova-Leaguefor the Defence ofHuman RightsMozambique-LigaMocanbicana DosDireitos HumanosNicaragua-CentroNicaraguense deDerechos HumanosNiger-AssociationNigerienne des Droitsde L'HommeNigeria-CivilLiberties OrganisationNouvelle Caledonie-Liguedes Droits deL'Homme de Nouvelle CaledonieOuganda-Foundationfor Human RightsInitiativePakistan-HumanRights Commission ofPakistanPalestine-AlHaqPalestine-PalestinianCentre for HumanRightsPanama-Centrode Capacitacion SocialPays Bas-LigaVoor de Rechten Van deMensPérou-AsociacionPro DerechosHumanosPérou-Centrode Asesoria LaboralPhilippines-PhilippineAlliance ofHuman Rights AdvocatesPolynésie Francaise-LiguePolynesiennedes Droits HumainsPortugal-CivitasRDC-Liguedes ElecteursRDC-AssociationAfricaine des Droits deL'HommeRDC-GroupeLotusRépublique de Djibouti-LigueDjiboutienne des Droits HumainsRépublique Tcheque-HumanRightsLeagueRoumanie-Liguepour la Defense desDroits de L'HommeRoyaume-Uni-LibertyRussie-Citizen'sWatchRussie-MoscowResearch Center forHuman RightsRwanda-Associationpour la Defensedes Droits des Personnes et LibertesPubliquesRwanda-Collectifdes Ligues pour laDefense des Droits de L'Homme AuRwandaRwanda-LigueRwandaise pour laPromotion et la Defense des Droits deL'HommeSénégal-OrganisationNationale desDroits de L'HommeSénégal-RencontreAfricaine pour laDefense des Droits de L'HommeSerbie et Montenegro-CenterforAntiwar Action - Council for HumanRightsSoudan (Royaume Uni)-SudanOrganisation Against TortureSoudan (Royaume-Uni)-SudanHumanRights OrganizationSuisse-LigueSuisse des Droits deL'HommeSyrie-Comitepour la Defense des Droitsde L'Homme en SyrieTanzanie-TheLegal & Human RightsCentreTchad-AssociationTchadienne pour laPromotion et la Defense des Droits deL'HommeTchad-LigueTchadienne des Droits deL'HommeThailande-Unionfor Civil LibertyTogo-LigueTogolaise des Droits deL'HommeTunisie-ConseilNational pour LesLibertes en TunisieTunisie-LigueTunisienne des Droits deL'HommeTurquie-HumanRights Foundation ofTurkeyTurquie-InsanHaklari Dernegi / AnkaraTurquie-InsanHaklari Dernegi /DiyarbakirUnion européenne-FIDHAEUzbekistan-LegalAid SocietyVietnam (France)-ComiteVietnam pourla Defense des Droits de L'HommeYemen-HumanRights Information andTraining CenterYemen-Sisters'Arabic Forum for HumanRightsZimbabwe-ZimbabweHuman RightsAssociation Zimrights

La Lettre