Rights (PCHR), over 1,400 Palestinians lost their lives as a result of Israeli attacks, an estimated83% of whom were civilians. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, 5,303Palestinians were injured, many of whom seriously2.The death and injury of civilians was accompanied by an unprecedented destruction of civilianinfrastructures. Investigations conducted by partners of the EMHRN in Gaza indicate that 2,114houses were completely and 3,242 partially destroyed. In other words, 5,356 houses (7,833 housingunits) were rendered uninhabitable, displacing 51,842 individuals. 6,855dunums3of agricultural landwere razed; 875 water irrigation networks, 151 agricultural wells, 40 agricultural water collectionpools were destroyed along with 286 economic and 167 industrial premises. The direct losses toGaza’s economic sector, arising solely from this destruction, has been estimated at USD$309,089,1884.However, despite the shocking nature of these statistics, the true extent of the damage inflicted onGaza in terms of loss of lives and destruction of civilian infrastructures has yet to be identified. Theemployment figures associated with Gaza’s industrial sector are illustrative in this regard. In June2006, prior to the imposition of Israel’s illegal closure regime, 65,000 workers were employed inGaza’s industrial sector. Before the offensive – as a result of the closure – this number had droppedto 35,000. Today, only 1,878 individuals are employed in Gaza’s industrial sector5. This dramaticincrease in unemployment has evident implications on a number of fundamental human rights,including but not limited to the right to work, the right to the highest attainable standard of physicaland mental health, and the right to adequate food.The violations of international law perpetrated by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip have been widelydocumented by a number of national and international human rights organizations, as well as byInternational Organizations, including the United Nations and the Arab League. Investigationsconducted by members of the EMHRN in Gaza have found evidence of a significant number of warcrimes – often amounting to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions – perpetrated by Israeliforces. The most significant violations of the laws and customs of war committed during operationCast Lead include Israel’s excessive and disproportinate use of force, its use of human shields, theillegal use of weapons, such as the use of white phosphorous and flechettes shells in denselypopulated civilian areas, the extensive and wanton destruction of civilian property not justified bymilitary necessity6, as well as attacks on civilians, who enjoy special protection under IHL. Attacks oncivilians not taking direct part in hostilities that result in deaths constitute wilful killing, a war crimeamounting to a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The widespread and systematicnature of such attacks during “Operation Cast Lead” may constitute the crime against humanity ofmurder.Israel investigations held into human rights violations during the offensive were problematic in thatthey were performed by the same institution that is accused of committing the offences, namely theIsraeli army. Moreover, the Israeli conclusions, published in June, have justified both the fact of theattack and for the most part the manner in which it was carried out. Attempts by Israeli civil society,including soldiers who had taken part in the attack, to testify to human rights violations wereFor Al Mezan Center for Human rights figures seehttp://www.mezan.ps/en/details.php?id=8552&ddname=gaza%20destruction&id2.For B’tselem figures see B’Tselem(2009)Guidelines for Israel’s Investigation into Operation Cast Lead: 27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009’February2009, p.1. For Al Haq’s figures please seehttp://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/gaza-operation-cast-Lead-statistical-analysis%20.pdf.3Onedunumis equivalent to 1000 square meters.4Information collated for PCHR’s Comprehensive Report on the Israeli Offensive, 27 December 2008 – 18 January2009, unpublished to date.5Information collated for PCHR’s Comprehensive Report on the Israeli Offensive, 27 December 2008 – 18 January2009, unpublished to date.6This constitutes a war crime amounting to a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.2

discredited by the Israeli government as unreliable. Israel has refused to date to cooperate with anyinternational fact-finding mission that has attempted to visit the Gaza Strip and Israel with a view toascertaining the facts. As a result, no authoritative and broadly-accepted account of the events existsto date. The Goldstone report commissioned by UNHRC is scheduled to be published in Septemberand it is to be hoped that it will constitute such an account, since it collected evidence from all parties(Palestinian and Israeli) except for the Israeli authorities.The Illegal Closure of the Gaza StripOperation Cast Lead took place in the wider context of Israel’s ongoing, illegal and near completeclosure of all of Gaza’s crossing points, severely impeding the movement of goods and people intoand out of the Gaza Strip. This closure policy - a form of collective punishment in explicit violation ofArticle 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention- has been continuously implemented by the IsraeliOccupying Power since June 2007, following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The impact ofthe closure is pervasive, indiscriminately affecting each and every one of Gaza’s 1.5 millioninhabitants, and violating a wide array of fundamental human rights and norms of internationalhumanitarian law.Despite its legal obligations to provide for the welfare of the occupied Palestinian population of theGaza Strip, Israel continues to heavily restrict the import of vital goods and services, including basicfood stuffs, medicine and construction material into the territory. The delivery of fuel and cooking gasremain far below required monthly needs. The amounts of cooking gas and industrial fuel (used tooperate Gaza’s only Power Plant), which entered the Gaza Strip in April 2009 constituted only 50%and 70%, respectively, of the monthly needs. Other types of fuel, including commercial benzene anddiesel have remained from entering the Gaza Strip since November 2008, except for the delivery ofsmall quantities to some UN facilities and hospitals7.In July 2009, the total amount of truckloads allowed entry into the Gaza Strip constituted only 18% ofthe pre-siege monthly average, reaching the lowest level since the beginning of the year8. As a result,food prices increase and the amount of many market foods, including but not limited to powderedmilk, beverages, tea, coffee, jam and several types of canned food items remain restricted. Israel’snear complete ban of construction material, including aggregate, cement and iron, into area,continues to prevent the reconstruction of Palestinian homes and other civilian infrastructuresdestroyed during the recent military offensive. While Israel continues to actively prevent recovery andresumption of normal life in the Gaza Strip, poverty and unemployment rates in the territory havereached unprecedented levels, estimated by PCHR at 80% and 69% respectively9.The EMHRN also wants to express its concern over thelimited access to medical carebyPalestinians, including children in the Gaza Strip, impeding their right to the highest attainablestandard of physical and mental health. Israeli occupying authorities continue to deny Palestinianpatients in the Gaza Strip permission to leave the territory in order to seek medical treatmentunavailable in the Strip, abroad. Since the closure began, approximately 61 Palestinians have diedas a direct result of either denial or delay of travel permits, or due to the shortage of medical suppliesin Gaza’s hospitals10. In 2009, an average of 51% of patients applying for exit permits to medical carethat was not available in Gaza were allowed to exit the Gaza Strip through Erez Crossing, as

compared to an average of 90% in the first half of 200711. Moreover, the majority of requestsreceived delayed answers from the Israeli authorities, and 73% of these were delayed for more than7 days12. Since the Hamas-takeover, the Israeli secret police (ISA) has summonsed some patientsfor interrogation at Erez Crossing as a condition for access to medical care. During the interrogationpatients were asked to provide intelligence in return for access, and if they refused, were turned backto Gaza. Between January 2008 and March 2009, at least 438 patients have been summonsed forinterrogations at Erez Crossing, as a precondition for the review of their applications for an exitpermit for the purpose of accessing medical treatment outside the Strip. The ratio of the number ofinterrogations to the total number of applications submitted to the authorities at Erez Crossing hasincreased from 1.45% in January 2008 to 17% in January 200913.Intensifying the closure on Gaza is the total ban placed on family visits to the approximately 900-1,000 Palestinianpolitical prisonersfrom Gaza currently being held in Israeli prisons. The ban hasbeen continuously imposed by the Israeli authorities since June 2006, following the capture of Israelisoldier Gilad Shalit.Last but not least, the EMHRN would also like to raise its strong concerns regarding the restrictionsimposed on the freedom of movement ofhuman rights defenders(HRDs) living in the Gaza Strip.Israel has frequently declined applications by Gazan HRDs to attend human rights related events inthe West Bank and abroad, most of the time based on “security concerns” which are impossible toverify given that the evidence used by the relevant military bodies is not accessible. Since thebeginning of siege on Gaza in June 2007 almost no HRD has been allowed to leave the Strip toparticipate in human rights activities or events. The application process is uncertain because ofunannounced rules and procedures decided by the Israeli military. Moreover, many human rightsdefenders, who received a permit at one moment in time, have afterwards seen their permit refused,putting in doubt the security reasons invoked by Israel. Preventing HRDs from carrying out their workfreely is utterly unacceptable and an important reason of concern. It is also all the more counter-productive in the current context of conflict and of political instability in the Palestinian Territory14.The Role of the International CommunityThe international community, and in particular the European Union, plays a key role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EU is a member of the Quartet, and one of the major donors to thePalestinian people. The EU, and its individual Member Sates, also enjoys close diplomatic and tradeties with the State of Israel.The EMHRN believes that Israel’s continued illegal actions – dramatically illustrated by the offensiveon the Gaza Strip and the continuing closure – are the result of its impunity. As High ContractingParties to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the individual States of the EU are under a legalobligation to “ensure respect” for the Conventions “in all circumstances”. The EU has not only failedto hold Israel accountable for its violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, but

has further adopted a “business-as-usual” approach despite these violations15. This is not leastdemonstrated by the EU’s continued maintenance of preferential trade agreements and closediplomatic relations with Israel, and by its failure to take concrete action to stop Israel’s illegalconduct.Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States forInternationally Wrongful Acts places an obligation on individual States not to aid or assist thecommission of an internationally wrongful act. Such aid and assistance includes,inter alia,financingthe wrongful conduct in question. Article 41 explicitly prohibits States from rendering aid orassistance used to maintain the situation created by a serious breach of international law. Bycontinually covering the financial costs associated with Israel’s illegal actions in the OPT, individualStates are in breach of their own international obligations, and acquiescing to Israel’s violations ofinternational law. Donor aid must not be used to relieve the cost of the occupation; specific concreteassurances must be demanded from the State of Israel. These assurances, and the political willnecessary to ensure their compliance, must form an integral part of international assistance to thePalestinian people, and must be balanced against continued support for Israel itself.As the responsible party, Israel must accept the consequences of its actions. The State of Israel issubject to explicit legal obligations: it bears the responsibility for reconstructing and maintaining theGaza Strip. Bank rolling the occupation without demanding an end to its violations of international law,is equivalent to acquiescence on the part of the international communityThe EMHRN stresses that the provisions of international humanitarian law apply regardless of theactions of the other party: international law explicitly prohibits reciprocity. While the EMHRNcondemns indiscriminate and thus unlawful launch of rockets on Israel by Palestinian armed groups,this does in no way justify Israel’s violations of international law.RecommendationsIn light of the above, the EMHRN calls on the EU during the upcoming human rights working groupmeeting to:-Use the legal and diplomatic tools at its disposal to pressure Israel to abide by its obligationsunder international law and to uphold its duty not to recognize and not to assist the illegalsituation created by its unlawful conduct in the Gaza Strip.Request Israel to immediately lift the siege on the Gaza Strip and allow the movement ofgoods and people into and out of the territory, in accordance with international law.Urge Israel to comply with the recommendations of independent investigations conducted byUN bodies, in particular the Goldstone fact-finding mission, whose recommendations will besubmitted to UNHRC in September, and to domestically prosecute those who havecommitted violations of international law. The EU should monitor Israel's compliance, andshould the perpetrators not be prosecuted in Israel, the EU and its Member States shouldexpress their support for prosecution in front of national courts, including in those of MemberStates.

II. East JerusalemPalestinians are slowly being expelled from Jerusalem under the eyes of the international community.In 2009, Israel continued to create facts on the ground in order to reduce the number of Palestiniansliving in East Jerusalem while at the same time allowing for an increased Israeli presence. The Israeliauthorities are applying acombination of unlawful strategies and measureswhich constitute asustained, systematic and flagrant breach of international law, and a grievous attack on Palestinianrights rendering negotiations meaningless. These strategies and measures include limiting familyreunification permits, revocation of residency rights16, redrawing Jerusalem's municipal boundaries,home demolitions, enlarging existing illegal Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and establishingnew ones, a policy of discrimination in planning and building as well as land expropriation.Forced displacement affects Palestinian families in many neighborhoods of East Jerusalem,including, but not limited to Silwan, the Mount of Olives, and Sheikh Jarrah. According to datacollected by OCHA17, from January to July 2009, at least 194 people, including 95 children, wereforcibly displaced, and another 107, including 46 children, otherwise affected as a result of housedemolitions ordered or carried out by the Israeli authorities in East Jerusalem. Fourthy-one structureswere demolished over this period. According to conservative estimates, there are currently over1,500 pending demolition orders in East Jerusalem alone, potentially affecting several thousandPalestinian residents18. These homes are destroyed under the pretext of lack of building permits,which are virtually impossible to obtain due to a combination of strict and obstructive zoning, planningand administrative requirements imposed by the Israeli authorities in charge. The planning policy inEast Jerusalem since its annexation in 1967 is affected by political considerations and infected bysystematic discrimination against the Palestinians living there. While extensive building andenormous budget allocations have been the rule in Jewish neighborhoods, the Israeli governmenthas choked development and building for the Palestinian population19. Since annexing EastJerusalem, the Israeli government has expropriated 24,500 dunams (over a third of the area), whichwere privately owned by Palestinians.Of particular concern are recent events in theSheikh Jarrah neighborhoodof East Jerusalem. “On2 August 2009, Israeli forces forcibly evicted nine families from their homes in two buildings,displacing 53 Palestinians, including 20 children. The buildings were immediately handed over to anIsraeli settler organization, while the families’ belongings were loaded on a truck and dumped in thestreet near UNRWA’s headquarters in East Jerusalem. These events come in the context of settlerattempts to construct hundreds of housing units in the heart of this Palestinian neighborhood, placinghundreds of other Palestinians at-risk of future displacement”20.According to B’Tselem, in 2006, the residency of 1,363 Palestinians had been revoked. The Israeli authorities haverefused to give B’Tselem more updated data so far. In June 2008 HaMoked submitted a petition under the Freedom ofInformation Act, in order to receive data regarding the scope of residency revocation in East Jerusalem between 2005and 2007. According to the data received, in 2005, 220 permanent residents of East Jerusalem were revoked of theirresidency; in 2006, 1,360 residencies were revoked; and in 2007, 289 East Jerusalemites lost their residency. Thenumber of revocations in 2006 is unprecedented. By comparison, in 1997, when implementation of the "quietdeportation"policywasatitsharshest,"only"1,067residencieswererevoked.http://www.hamoked.org.il/news_main_en.asp?id=74517Table obtained from OCHA.18OCHA Fact Sheet August 2009, p. 4:http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_shiekh_jarrah_english_2009_08_15.pdf19See B’tselem,http://www.btselem.org/english/jerusalem/discriminating_policy.asp20OCHA humanitarian monitor July 2009, p.5:16

Furthermore, huge new infrastructure projects are underway to support the settlements, including theEast Jerusalem ring road and the Jerusalem Light Rail. In addition, the occupying forces havenearlycompleted the construction of the Wall/Barrieras they move to cut Jerusalem off from the rest ofthe West Bank. Upon its completion, the fear is that the Wall/Barrier will serve as the de factoboundary for the city providing a new pretext for the denial of Jerusalem residency to thousands ofJerusalemites who will be located on the “wrong side” of the Wall/Barrier. Palestinian permit holdersare allowed to cross the Barrier into East Jerusalem through only four of the 18 existing checkpointsand only by foot.The EMHRN is particularly worried about theresumption of punitive house demolitions in EastJerusalemsince mid-2008. On 17 February 2005, the Minister of Defence had announced acessation of punitive house demolitions following recommendations by an inquiry team. On 19January 2009, without giving a convincing explanation, Israel renewed this illegal policy and sealedtwo of four floors in the house of the family of the perpetrator of the attack at the Mercaz Haravyeshiva in Jerusalem, ‘Alaa Abu Dahim, in which his parents and one of his brothers lived. On 18March, the Israeli High Court of Justice allowed the State to demolish the home of the family ofHusam Dwayat, who used a bulldozer to carry out an attack in the centre of Jerusalem last July.Dwayat’s widow and two small children lived in the apartment.RecommendationsThe EMHRN calls on the EU to urge Israel to immediately cease its illegal practices in EastJerusalem, including the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements and their associatedinfrastructure as well as punitive house demolitions, which violates international human rights andhumanitarian law.III.Institutional Discrimination against the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel

Land Reform Law – 2009On 3 August 2009, the Knesset passedthe Israel Land Administration (ILA) Law.The new law isextremely prejudicial to the constitutional rights of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, and it violatesthe property rights of the Palestinian refugees as it contravenes international humanitarian lawapplicable to them and their property. The ILA law is wide ranging in scope and has four mainelements:a. It institutes broad land privatization. Ownership rights of all residential, commercial and industrialareas will be transferred, along with all lands that have been approved for development,estimated at around 800,000 dunams (200,000 acres). This land includes the property ofPalestinian refugees (“absentees’” properties), some of the lands of destroyed and evacuatedArab villages, and land otherwise confiscated from Palestinian citizens, which will be sold off.None of these lands will be open to restitution claims in the future.b. It permits land exchanges between the State and the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the land ofwhich is exclusively reserved for the Jewish people. 50,000-60,000 dunams of land will betransferred from the JNF to the state, mainly in the cities, and in return, the JNF will receive stateland in the Naqab (Negev) area and the Galilee. In the Naqab, the land swap will lead to thedevelopment of Jewish towns while the state is working towards evacuating the unrecognizedArab Bedouin villages, and in the Galilee more JNF lands in the area will put further restrictions

on the potential future development of the Arab towns and villages and serve the purpose of“Judaizing” the Galilee.c. It allows lands to be allocated in accordance with “admissions committee” mechanisms and onlyto candidates approved by Zionist institutions working solely on behalf of the Jewish people.Around 80% of the land space in the State is affected (the jurisdiction of the regional councils),and close to 700moshavim, kibbutzimand community towns. These settlements have no Arabresidents and will continue, through this law, to exclude Arabs from residing in them.d. It grants decisive weight to JNF representatives in a new Land Authority Council, which wouldreplace the ILA: 43% of the members of the new Council are to be JNF representatives (6 out of13), and the same percentage that will be reserved for JNF representatives in its sub-committees.This privilege contradicts principles by which public administration should be administered sincethe JNF sees itself as a trustee of the Jewish people with its properties distributed exclusively toJewish people, to the detriment of the land and property rights of Palestinian citizens of Israeland Palestinian refugees.New Wave of “anti-Arab” Legislative OffensivesThe elections held in Israel in February 2009 brought an extreme right-wing government coalition topower. Many coalition parties, including the Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, ran “anti-Arab” electioncampaigns. Yisrael Beiteinu’s main campaign slogan was “No loyalty, no citizenship”. With thisclearly racist message, the party became the third largest party in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Yisrael Beiteinu, serves as Deputy Prime Minister and ForeignMinister in the new government. Yisrael Beitneinu now controls the ministries that deal with lawenforcement, including the Ministry of Internal Public Security (the Police) and Liebermanrecommended the appointment of Ya’akov Ne’eman, the Minister of Justice, who is expected tocontinue attempts to undermine the power of the Israeli Supreme Court. The Chairperson of theKnesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee is also from Yisrael Beiteinu.Coalition members began their tenure by launching a flood of “anti-Arab” legislation. Specifically, thesebills seek to undermine the ability of Palestinian citizens of Israel to participate in the political life of thecountry, turn citizenship from a right into a conditional privilege, criminalize political expression or acts thatquestion the Jewish/Zionist nature of the state (e.g., the Nakba Law), and use the criterion of militaryservice21as a justification for discrimination.22Extension of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law: Ban on Family UnificationOn 27 July 2009, the Knesset voted to extend the validity of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law(Temporary Order) – 2003 for another year to 31 July 2010, the ninth extension of the law to date.The law, first enacted in July 2003, denies Palestinian citizens of Israel the right to acquire Israeliresidency or citizenship status for their Palestinian spouses from the OPT, solely on the basis of theirnationality. The law is sweeping in its application and extremely disproportionate to the allegedsecurity reasons cited by Israel to justify its enactment. In May 2006, a 6-5 majority of the IsraeliSupreme Court decided to uphold the law.23Amendments made to the law in 2007 expanded the banto include a ban on spouses from “enemy states”, such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, and“anyone living in an area in which operations that constitute a threat to the State of Israel are being

carried out.”24The law flagrantly discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are mostlikely to have non-citizen Palestinian/Arab/Muslim spouses. At the same time, however, the “gradualprocess” of naturalization for residency and citizenship status for all other “foreign spouses” remainsunchanged. The ban on family unification severely violates the fundamental rights of family life,privacy, protection for the child, equality before the law, and protection of minorities. Thousands offamilies are adversely affected by the law.Language Rights: Road Signs in ArabicIn July 2009, the Transport Minister made a decision to Hebraize all road signs in Israel, and removethe Arabic names of towns and villages from all road signs in Israel and to replace them with theHebrew names of the places using Arabic letters, regardless of the common and historical Arabicname of the place. For example, “Jerusalem” would become “Yerushalaim” in Hebrew, English andArabic, and “Al-Quds” (the Arabic name for Jerusalem) would cease to exist on road signs25. Thedecision is contrary to an Israeli Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2002 on a petition submittedby Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which obliges the municipalities in themixed cities to add Arabic to the traffic and warning signs as well as other informational signs inareas under their jurisdiction26. For Palestinian citizens of Israel, the name of the town is not aformality, but an integral part of the Arabic language and Palestinian culture. Furthermore, underIsraeli law Arabic is an official language in the State, as well as the mother tongue of the nationalminority, and thus Israel has a duty to maintain and develop Arabic and use it in a way that willensure its preservation in all areas and at all levels.Police Brutality against Arab Citizens of IsraelThe October 2000 killings casesOn 27 January 2008, the Israeli Attorney General issued a decision to close the investigation filesagainst police officers and commanders accused of killing 13 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israeland injuring hundreds more during the October 2000 protest demonstrations in Israel. Police,including snipers, used live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets, and tear gas, all prohibited bylaw and even violate internal police regulations. No one has been held accountable for the deaths ofthe 13 men and the victims and their families have had no remedy.27Police Violence against Demonstrators Protesting against Israel’s Military Attacks on GazaDespite the tragic events in October 2000, the Israeli police and security forces continue to useexcessive and brutal force in breaking up demonstrations, including demonstrations for which officialpermission was obtained in advanced. The targets of disproportionate force by the security forcesinclude minors. The intended effect is to discourage Arab citizens of Israel from exercising their rightto freedom of assembly and stifling freedom of opinion and expression. Furthermore, a high numberof complaints filed by Arab citizens against police officers are not properly and effectivelyinvestigated, and the Ministry of Justice’s Police Investigations Unit (Mahash) lacks independence.28Petitions filed to the Supreme Court of Israel challenging the constitutionality of the law, including a petitionsubmitted by Adalah, remain pending. H.C. 830/07,Adalah v. The Minister of the Interior, et al.25On 15 July 2009, Adalah sent an urgent letter to the Attorney General demanding the cancellation of the TransportMinister’s decision, to which is has to date not received a reply.26H.C. 4112/99,Adalah, et al. v. The Municipality of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, et al(decision delivered 25 July 2002).27In November 2000, Israel established an official Or Commission of Inquiry to investigate the circumstances of thekilling of 13 unarmed Palestinian citizens by the security forces and injury of hundreds of others during protestdemonstrations in October 2000. The Commission recommended that the Ministry of Justice Police Investigations Unit(Mahash) investigate the killings. It found the security forces’ use of live ammunition and snipers unjustified in everyinstance, and found police commanders responsible for the use of excessive force. In September 2005, Mahashreleased a report in which it recommended no indictments against police officers and commanders.28According to information provided by Israel to the UN Human Rights Committee in its Third Periodic Report(CCPR/C/ISR/3, 21 November 2008, Table 10), of 1,273 complaints investigated by the Israeli police into allegations24

In a recent example, the Israeli police and security forces detained 715 individuals, mostlyPalestinian citizens of the State, during demonstrations against the Israeli military attacks on Gaza of27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009.2934% of these detainees were minors. Of the 203 personswho were detained in custody until the conclusion of proceedings against them, 54% were minors.30Many instances of police violence against unarmed demonstrators were also documented during theclamp-down on demonstrations. In the Arab village of Kufr Kanna, for example, incidents wererecorded of armed police officers using heavy-handed tactics against demonstrators, including strikingthem on the head and extremities without first attempting to communicate with them, spraying tear gasat protestors’ faces, dragging individual protestors away and beating them with arms, helmets andmetal batons.31The police then subjected protestors to insults and further beatings while transportingthem to police stations, where affidavits reveal that they faced a variety of brutal acts. Some detaineeswere kicked, punched and spat on upon their arrival, handcuffed using plastic ties, kicked in the faceand genital areas, slapped in the face, pulled by the ears, had lit cigarettes stubbed out on their bodies,and subjected to a barrage of insults.32Failure to Protect Muslim Holy Sites in IsraelOn 16 March 2009, after five years of litigation, the Supreme Court of Israel rejected a petitiondemanding that Israel promulgate regulations for the protection of Muslim holy sites in Israel, inaccordance with theProtection of Holy Sites Law – 1967.33Around 135 sacred places in Israel havebeen declared as holy sites, all of which are Jewish.34The result of this discrimination is the neglectand desecration of Muslim holy sites in Israel: many mosques and other holy sites have beenconverted into bars, night clubs, stores and restaurants. The court rejected the need for thepromulgation of regulations to bind various government ministries in this regard, arguing that definingspecific sites as Muslim holy sites was a “sensitive matter.” While the court acknowledged themiserable state of Muslim holy sites and the need to repair them, it further ruled that the State’scommitment to designate a budget of NIS 2 million (approximately US $500,000) for the maintenanceof Muslim holy sites was sufficient. The meager budget committed to by the State will not be sentdirectly to Islamic committees for them to invest in the protection of the holy sites, but to the IsraelLand Administration (ILA) to undertake this task. However, the ILA has done nothing to prevent thedesecration of Muslim holy sites; in fact, in many instances it has played an active role in theirdesecration.RecommendationsIn light of the above the EMHRN calls on the EU to urge Israel to:

of unlawful use of force during 2004, only 49, or 3.8%, resulted in criminal proceedings. Israel did not provideinformation about how many of those 49 resulted in convictions.29Adalah,Forbidden Protests,publication forthcoming 2009. According to a poll conducted during the military attacksby theHaaretznewspaper, despite pictures from Gaza depicting massive destruction and a large number of woundedand killed, including women and children, 82% of the Israeli public believed that Israel had not “gone too far” in theattacks.Haaretz,“Poll shows most Israelis back IDF action in Gaza,” 15 January 2009.30Ibid.31Meezan Center for Human Rights (Nazareth, Israel),Report on the Anti-Gaza War Demonstrations,2009 (Arabic).Available at:http://www.meezaan.org/1/news-54.html.The report contains photographic evidence of the injuriessustained by demonstrators.32Op. Cit.33Adalah submitted the petition in November 2004 in its own name and on behalf of Sheikh Abdullah Nimer Darwish,Sheikh Kamel Rayyan, MK Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour, and formed MK Abd al-Malek Dahamshe, as well as the Al-AqsaAssociation for the Preservation of Muslim Holy Sites. H.C. 10532/04,Sheikh Abdullah Nimr Darwish, et al. v. Ministerof Religious Affairs, et al.(petition rejected 16 March 2009).34A list of the sites in Hebrew is available at:http://www.religions.gov.il/list_holy_places.htm#top.

Amend or cancel the Israel Land Administration Law – 2009 in order to bring it intocompliance with the principles of non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion and nationalorigin, and ensure that State-controlled land is allocated to Palestinian and Jewish citizens ofthe State in accordance with the principle of equality. The EU should also raise in itsdiscussions with Israel, as a matter of extreme urgency, the sale of Palestinian refugeeproperty, which is in contravention of both Israeli and international law and threatens tojeopardize future peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, a cornerstone ofwhich is the issue of the refugees and their property.Promote and protect the rights of Arab citizens of Israel, especially their rights to citizenship,political participation, and other civil and political rights as stipulated in customary andconventional international law, and refrain from introducing and supporting legislation in theKnesset which restricts and limits the rights of Arab citizens of the State in a discriminatorymanner solely on the basis of their national belonging.Revoke the ban on family unification. The EU should reiterate its concerns regardingthe discriminatory nature of the extended Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and urgeIsrael to cancel it.Respect the language and cultural rights of Arab citizens of Israel in general, and halt plansto remove the Arabic names of towns and village from road signage in particular.Hold police officers and commanders responsible for the October 2000 killings of 13 unarmedArab citizens of Israel during protest demonstrations to account for their actions and bringthem to justice. The State’s official announcement that no criminal prosecutions will beinitiated thereby granting those who are responsible impunity, makes the involvement of theEU even more crucial. The EU should also call upon Israel to respect the rights of Palestiniancitizens of Israel to peaceful demonstration and to freely express their political opinions.Provide effective legal protection to Muslim holy sites located in Israel, and act decisively toprevent their further neglect and desecration.

There are currently about 17,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Israel. Most of the asylum seekerscome from Eritrea (approximately 7,000 among them more than 550 minors) and Sudan(approximately 5,500 among them more than 600 minors)36. The UN High Commissioner forRefugees requests not to deport to these countries due to the tangible danger facing those whoreturn. There are also several hundred asylum seekers in Israel from Congo and the Ivory Coast,countries that are defined as “crisis countries” and whose citizens are entitled to temporary collectiveprotection in Israel.Approximately 1,500 asylum seekers are currently being held in detention at various imprisonmentfacilities around Israel. Approximately 10,000 asylum seekers are concentrated in Tel Aviv, Eilat, andArad, while the remainder is dispersed in moshavim, kibbutzim, and cities. The majority are healthyyoung men. However, the population of asylum seekers also includes several hundred women andmore than 1000 children and minors. Many suffer from trauma as the result of the severeexperiences they have undergone.Israel has recognized only 170 refugees since 1951. Since 2002, an advisory committee to theinterior minister (NSGB – National Status Granting Body) is authorized to recommend theacceptance or rejection of asylum requests. Since the committee commenced its operations, there35

has been no increase in the number of asylum seekers whose request has been approved. In 2008,this committee met once and only reviewed 12 requests. Applications of Sudanese and Eritreans arenot being considered at this time at all.The frequent return of African refugees to Egypt, under the very controversial“Hot Return”procedure,which allows an immediate expulsion for illegal immigrants back to Egypt withoutgranting them access to the Israeli asylum system, despite ample evidences of mistreatment andkillings of several refugees by the Egyptian authorities, violates the United Nations Convention on theStatus of Refugees to which Israel is a signatory, including the notion ofnon-refoulement,whichprohibits States from sending asylum-seekers into life-endangering situations37. Thenon-refoulementprinciple was declared by the Supreme Court to be part of Israeli domestic law and should berespected as such. In May 2009, the UN Committee Against Torture regrets that this principle hasnot been formally incorporated into domestic law, policy, practices or procedure38.Furthermore, the EMHRN express deep concern about the draft “Prevention of Infiltration” Law,approvedby an overwhelming majority of the Knesset during a preliminary reading on 19 May200939. This law foresees sentences of up to five years in prison for people who cross the border intoIsrael illegally, including refugees, and up to seven years for residents and citizens of States defined“as enemy states”40. A further cause of concern is the fact that the same sentences could be appliedto thestaff and volunteers ofIsraeliaid organizations that assist refugees.This law alsoanchors into law the "Hot Return Procedure", representing a flagrant violation of refugees’ basicrights.RecommendationsIsrael bears an obligation to respect the Geneva Refugees Convention, to which it is a signatory, andto elaborate policy that respects its obligations under this convention.Therefore, the EMHRN calls upon the EU to urge Israel to:-Abolish the draft ‘Prevention of Infiltration” Law and introduce new legislation41in alignmentwith the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Optional Protocol both of which have beensigned and ratified by the Israeli government. In particular, Israel should ensure that allasylum seekers who reach Israel enjoy access to a fair procedure for examining their asylumrequest, regardless of their country of origin.Abolish the illegal “hot return” procedure as this policy prevents asylum seekers fromrealizing their rights and endangers their lives.Impunity for Torture and Ill-treatment42

It is estimated that dozens of asylum-seekers have been killed this way in recent years. See FIDH press release onthis issue:Refugees and Asylum seekers in danger! The new "Prevention of Infiltration Law" adopted in violation ofrefugees’ basic right(http://www.fidh.org/Refugees-and-Asylum-seekers-in), 3 June 2008.38UN CAT Concluding Observations on Israel, 14 May 2009, p. 6:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/cobs/CAT.C.ISR.CO.4.pdf39On 4 June 2009, the newly elected Knesset voted in favor (59 for and 1 against) of enabling the law proposed bythe previous Knesset to continue without interruption to 2nd and 3rd readings. This law will soon go through its secondand third readings, the requirements for a bill to pass.40Including refugees from Darfur, Sudan.41Israeli human rights organisations have drafted a law proposal to this effect called: "Law proposal for recognition ofthestatusofasylumseekersandrefugeesinIsrael,2009".See(inHebrewonly):http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1248259809828.doc.42See also PCATI's latest reports on the issue: “Ticking Bombs” Testimonies of Torture Victims in Israel,http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/,"ShacklingasaFormofTortureandAbuse"

A general atmosphere of impunity persists in Israel. Since 2001, the Israeli State Attorney's Officehas received over six hundred complaints of torture or ill-treatment by interrogators of the IsraelSecurity Authority (GSS/ISA)43, yet has not found cause to order a single criminal investigation intosuch charges. The State Attorney's decisions to open a criminal investigation are based on thefindings of an examination conducted by the “Inspector of Complaints by ISA Interrogees,” who is anactive ISA agent, answerable to the head of the ISA. He is neither independent nor impartial and hisfindings are kept secret. This mechanism creates the appearance of a complaints investigationsystem while actually providing total immunity from criminal liability contributing to an ongoing systemof impunity which makes torture inevitable.In a very limited number of cases, the Complaints Inspector determined that ISA agents had indeedabused an interrogee. However, in these cases, the State Attorney's Office decided to close the filewithout ordering a criminal investigation on the tendentious grounds established by the 1999 HighCourt ruling that “ticking bomb” cases exempt the ISA interrogator from criminal responsibility.However, even the High Court ruled that the ill-treatment must be a spontaneous response by anindividual interrogator to an unexpected occurrence. In practice, all evidence points to the fact thatboth the routine abuse and the "special" methods are preauthorized and are used according topreset regulations44.Violence against Palestinian in their daily encounters with Israeli security forces remains an on-goingproblem. Since September 2000, B'Tselem has submitted 345 complaints for violence - beating,using rifle butts, clubs and other means of injury - against Palestinian detainees by Israeli police,border police, and soldiers. Unlike the complete lack of investigation into ISA ill-treatment and torture,criminal investigations are opened in the majority of these cases. However, perpetrators are rarelyheld accountable. Of the 345 total complaints, only 14 cases, or 4%, have resulted in an indictment45.A further cause of serious concern is the use of violence against Palestinian detainees by the Israeliauthorities. During their detention, Palestinians continue to be threatened, verbally and physicallyassaulted46.The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) together with the World Organization AgainstTorture (OMCT) submitted an alternative report47to the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) andtestified before it prior to its review of the State of Israel's periodic report in May 2009. This reportincludes an overview of the different methods of torture and ill-treatment used by GSS/ISAinterrogators and by soldiers.The Concluding Observations of the UN CAT are highly critical ofIsrael48and reflect the harsh reality and the allegations made in numerous complaints oftorture and ill-treatment.PCATI called on the State of Israel to adopt the Committee'srecommendations and, first and foremost, draft a law that explicitly outlaws torture, placeshttp://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/node/1441,"Family Matters, Using Family Members to Pressure Detainees"http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/node/103943What was formerly known as the General Security Service, GSS, is now referred to by Israel as the Israel SecurityAuthority, ISA44B’Tselem and Hamoked Supplement information for the consideration of Israel,submitted to the CAT, April 2009,p.4:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/BTselemHaMoked_Israel42.pdf45For more information Op. Cit., p. 5.46For further information, please see a report published by PCATI in June 2008

“No

Defense: Soldier Violenceagainst Palestinian Detainees”. The report focuses on a large number of incidents of violence against detainees afterthey had been arrested, bound, and no longer present a danger to the soldiers. It reveals that although thephenomenon of violence against Palestinian detainees by soldiers is blatantly illegal, it is reinforced by a weak legalsystem which conducts only a small number of investigations and legal proceedings that concern cases of abuse bysoldiers.http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/node/113647PCATI and OMCT, Israel – Briefing to the UN Committee Against Torture, Jerusalem & Geneva, April 2009:http://www.stoptorture.org.il/files/PCATI-OMCT_Israel_Alternative%20report%20to%20CAT_9%20April%202009.pdf48UN CAT Concluding Observations on Israel, 14 May 2009:http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/cobs/CAT.C.ISR.CO.4.pdf

investigations of torture under an independent and impartial body and brings to justice all those whoviolate the absolute prohibition of torture, a peremptory norm of international law, from which noderogation is permitted.RecommendationsIn light of the above and based on the report of PCATI and OMCT including the recommendationscontained therein, the EMHRN calls on the EU to urge Israel to:•Eliminate the post of the “Official in Charge of GSS Interrogees’ Complaints” and replace itwith independent officials who are not related to the GSS/ISA in any way, in order to ensureimpartial and effective investigations of complaints;Ensure prompt, effective and impartial investigations into all cases of IDF soldiers usingviolence against or humiliating detainees, and prosecute soldiers and commanderssuspected of such acts. Those found guilty must be punished by appropriate penalties whichtake into account the grave nature of the offences49.Incorporate into its domestic law a crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the UNConvention Against Torture.

Furthermore, the EMHRN also calls upon the EU to request from Israel to:••Clarify through legislation that defenses such as “necessity” or “superior orders” shall notapply to those who perpetrate torture and other ill-treatment;Instruct the GSS/ISA to cease immediately the application of any means of torture and otherill-treatment, and only use methods of “reasonable interrogation” that fully comply with theConvention;Repeal all laws and orders providing for arbitrary, incommunicado or indefinite detention bothunder Israeli domestic and military law, including CriminalProcedure (Enforcement Powers –Arrest) Law,1996;Criminal Procedure (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (TemporaryProvision) Law,2006;Detention of Illegal Combatants (Amendment and TemporaryProvision) Law,2008; and the relevant sections of (military) Order Concerning SecurityProvisions (Judea and Samaria) (No. 378);Repeal all legal provisions authorizing police, GSS/ISA or IDF commanders to denydetainees access to counsel, both in Israeli and military law;Ensure full monitoring and recording of the interrogation of detainees, including by GSS/ISA,through audio and video taping. Resources must be urgently allocated for installing recordingsystems (audio and video) in all interrogation rooms.Movement restrictions in the OPT

The Israeli authorities took a series of measures over the course of the past few months to ease theflow of Palestinian traffic in 4 main Palestinian cities. However, as stated by OCHA, “these measurestook place in the context of a wider process of entrenchment of some of the mechanisms used tocontrol and restrict Palestinian movement. This process includes, among other elements, theexpansion of the “fabric of life” road network and of key permanently staffed checkpoints. While insome cases these measures have eased access, they exact a price from Palestinians in terms ofland loss, disruption of traditional routes, and deepening fragmentation of West Bank territory50.Moreover, the number of closure obstacles remains constant, with a total of staffed and unstaffedobstacles in July 2009 of 614, compared to 634 in March 2009 and 630 in September 200851.According to date collected by OCHA52, out of the 613 closure obstacles within the West Bankterritory in June 2009, 68 are permanently staffed checkpoints, 522 unstaffed obstacles (also calledphysical obstacles, which include roadblocks, earth mounds, earth walls, road barriers, road gatesand trenches) and 23 “partial checkpoints”, which are points of control staffed on an ad-hoc basis. Inrecent years, the number of physical obstructions has gradually risen. In March 2009, there were 541obstructions in the West Bank. The average monthly total for 2008 (January to September) is 537. In2007, the monthly average was 459, in 2006 it was 445, and in 2005, 410. In addition to the 613,there are 84 obstacles blocking Palestinian access and movement within the Israeli controlled area ofHebron City, 63 crossing points along the Wall/Barrier, also known as “Gates” which controlPalestinian movement into West Bank areas on the west side of the Wall/Barrier, and an average of70 random (“flying”) checkpoints deployed and later dismantled every week since the beginning of2009.At the end of April 2007, the Israeli army announced that, as of May, it would cancel the restriction onPalestinians entering the Jordan Valley. In practice, however, as of June 2009, there are still somecheckpoints restricting entry into the area, except for vehicles with permits, and others that allow onlypedestrians to enter53.These obstacles to movement constitute only one of several layers of a complex system of accessrestrictions applicable to Palestinians, which include,inter alia,restrictions on the use of main roads,the Wall/Barrier and its permit regime, closed military zones and nature reserves, and Israelisettlements and adjacent “buffer zones”.The construction of the planned 705 km long route of the Wall/Barrier in the West Bank, includingEast-Jerusalem, continues with more than 58% of the 709-kilometre-long Barrier completed, a further10% under construction and 31.5% planned54. Two hundred kilometers have been built since theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004, confirming that thesections of the Wall/Barrier running inside the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, together with itsassociated gate and permit regime, violate international law. The ICJ called on Israel to ceaseconstruction of the Wall ‘including in and around East Jerusalem’; dismantle the sections alreadycompleted; and ‘repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating50

thereto55. The Court also stated that all states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegalsituation resulting from the construction of the Wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintainingthe situation created by such construction and to ensure compliance by Israel with internationalhumanitarian law as embodied in the Fourth Geneva Convention56.Upon completion of the barrier, 85 % of the route will run inside the West Bank, leaving 11.9 percentof the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), on the west of the barrier or surrounded completely orpartially by it. These areas are home to 498,000 Palestinians (222,500 in East Jerusalem) living in 92towns and villages. As of July 2009, approximately 10,000 Palestinians are located between theBarrier and the Green Line.57Already, access to East Jerusalem, the major health, economic,religious and education centre has been cut off by the Barrier, as well as access to agricultural landin the rural areas.The Israeli Army continues to prohibit or severely restrict the use by Palestinians of roads, renderingthem largely for exclusive Israeli use. Palestinian travel is restricted or prohibited outright on at least430 kilometres of roads in the West Bank, while Israelis are allowed to travel these sections freely.On at least 137 kilometres, the army prohibits Palestinian travel completely; on the remainder of theforbidden roads, Palestinians with permits or who live in East Jerusalem are allowed travel58.Freedom of Movement between the West Bank and the Gaza StripSince the beginning of the current Intifada, Israel has taken various actions to divide the Palestinianpopulation into two distinct entities, by isolating the West Bank from the Gaza Strip. Through variousphysical and administrative measures, Israel has rendered the movement between the two areasvirtually impossible, preventing the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian territory, thus underminingthe right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.Movement between the West Bank and Gaza requires permits, which are only granted toPalestinians in a very limited number of cases. This separation policy has escalated in the past years.Since 2008, the military has taken active measures to locate and expel Palestinians from the WestBank to the Gaza Strip under the pretext that they are "illegal aliens". Israel requires Palestinianswishing to enter Gaza to sign an undertaking never to return to the West Bank. On the other hand,Palestinians from Gaza wishing to enter the West Bank for medical treatment, family visits etc., arerequired to deposit a large sum of money to guarantee their return to Gaza. Since March 2009, theIsraeli government refuses to review the appeals of any person wishing to change their place ofabode from Gaza to the West Bank except in three narrowly defined "humanitarian" cases59. Thesemeasures infringe,inter alia,on the ability of Palestinians to raise a family, to choose their residenceand to attain the highest possible standard health.RecommendationsIn light of the above, the EMHRN urges the EU to pressure Israel to ensure the freedom ofmovement of Palestinians within the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and between the WestBank and the Gaza Strip, in accordance with international law.VII.Administrative Detention

Israel’s illegal practice of detaining Palestinians without charge or trial for a period of up to six monthsand indefinitely extendable, also known as administrative detention, remains widespread throughoutthe OPT. According to the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) figures as at 30 June 2009, there are at least428 Palestinians being detained in administrative detention, of which 3 are women and one is achild60.In May 2009, the UN Committee Against Torture stated that “Whilethe State party [ Israel ]explains that this practice is used only exceptionally when confidentiality make it impossible topresent evidence in ordinary criminal proceedings, the Committee regrets that the number of personsheld in administrative detention has risen significantly since its last periodic report”61. As of December2008,the vast majority of administrative detainees, were held in administrative detention at leasttwice62.The EMHRN would like to draw particular attention to theIllegal Combatants Law.This law, asamended in August 2008, allows for the detention of non-Israeli citizens falling into the category of“unlawful combatants” who are described as “combatants who are believed to have taken part inhostile activity against Israel, directly or indirectly” for a period of up to 14 days without any judicialreview. Detention orders under this law can be renewed indefinitely; evidence is neither madeavailable to the detainee nor to his lawyer and, although the detainees have the right to petition to theSupreme Court, the charges against them are also reportedly kept secret63. On 11 June 2008 theIsraeli High Court of Justice ruled that the Incarceration of Illegal Combatants Law is constitutional, inresponse to an appeal by Palestinians from the Gaza Strip who were held in administrative detentionuntil the completion of the disengagement plan in September 2005.According to Hamoked and B’Tselem, after the release of two detainees on 18 August, 10 or 11detainees are still detained under the Illegal Combatant Law. As of early April 2009, 20 Palestiniansfrom the Gaza Strip, arrested during “Operation Cast Lead”, are still detained in Israel, 13 of whom inthe Shikmah prison in Ashkelon as security detainees, facing charges in Israeli courts, and six ofwhom in Ketsiot as “unlawful combatants”.According to international law, administrative detention must be future-oriented, i.e., must aim toprevent a prospective serious threat to security, and is permissible only if lesser measures have beenfound ineffective. It is unlawful to use administrative detention to punish a person for offenses that heor she has ostensibly committed. In hundreds of cases annually, however, the Israeli authoritiesexploit administrative detention as a rapid and efficient alternative to a criminal proceeding,especially when they do not have adequate admissible evidence to convict the individual, or whenthey want to conceal the evidence in their possession. Secondly, administrative detention must besubject to judicial review that meets minimal standards of a fair trial. However, in a majority of casesin Israel, the notice given to the detainee is extremely brief, and does not include even the most basicdetails (period of activity, nature of involvement, etc.) that the detainee might refute. In addition, theauthorities generally declare the information provided to the judges confidential, and the judgesroutinely deny the defence counsel’s request for access to the material. Under these circumstances,the detainee’s right to mount a defence against the administrative-detention order is an emptyformality. The harm caused to the rights to liberty and a fair trial are indicated by the scope of judicialintervention in the decisions of the military commander: in 2006, of 2,934 administrative detentionorders (including extensions of existing orders), only 156 (some five percent) were found unjustifiedand were nullified by the military court.60