I. INTRODUCTION

For decades Israel has pursued a policy of forced eviction¹ and demolition of homes of Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the homes of Israeli Arabs in Israel. In the past three and a half years the scale of the destruction carried out by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories has reached an unprecedented level. The victims are often amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged in both Israeli and Palestinian society. Most of the houses demolished by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories were the homes of refugee families, who were expelled by Israeli forces or who fled in the war that followed the creation of Israel in 1948.

More than 3,000 homes, hundreds of public buildings and private commercial properties, and vast areas of agricultural land have been destroyed by the Israeli army and security forces in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the past three and a half years. Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been forcibly evicted from their homes and made homeless or have lost their source of livelihood. Thousands of other houses and properties have been damaged, many beyond repair. In addition, tens of thousands of other homes are under threat of demolition, their occupants living in fear of forced eviction and homelessness.

Forced evictions and house demolitions are usually carried out without warning, often at night, and the occupants are given little or no time to leave their homes. Sometimes they are allowed a few minutes or half an hour, too little to salvage their belongings. Often the only warning is the rumbling of the Israeli army’s bulldozers and tanks and the inhabitants barely have time to flee as the bulldozers begin to tear down the walls of their homes. Thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers. In the wake of the demolitions men, women and children return to the ruins of their homes searching for whatever can be salvaged from under the rubble: passports or other documents, children’s schoolbooks, clothes, kitchenware or furniture which were not destroyed.

In most cases the justification given by the Israeli authorities for the destruction of homes, agricultural land and other properties is "military/security needs", while in other cases the justification is lack of building permits. The result is the same: families are left homeless and destitute. They must rely on relatives, friends and charity organizations for shelter and subsistence.

The destruction of Palestinian homes, agricultural land and other property in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies, notably by establishing Israeli settlements. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violates international humanitarian law,² and the presence of these settlements has led to mass violations of human rights of the local Palestinian population.

As well as violating international humanitarian law per se, the implementation of Israel’s settlement policy in the Occupied Territories violates fundamental human rights provisions. The seizure and appropriation of land for Israeli settlements, bypass roads and related infrastructure and the discriminatory allocation of other vital resources, including water, have had a devastating impact on the fundamental rights of the local Palestinian population, including their rights to an adequate standard of living and to housing.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have spread considerably in the past decade and in the same period the number of Israeli settlers has increased by more than 50%.³ With the spread of Israeli settlements and related infrastructure throughout the Occupied Territories, in order to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli army has committed increasingly frequent and grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian population. These violations include widespread destruction of Palestinian homes, land and other properties, as a result of which thousands of Palestinians have been forcibly evicted and made homeless.

In Israel it is essentially the homes of Palestinian citizens of Israel (Israeli Arabs) which are targeted for demolition. House demolition in the Arab sector is linked to the state’s policy of large-scale confiscation of land and to restrictive planning regulations. Much of the land surrounding Arab towns and villages has been confiscated and the remaining Arab owned land has been mostly zoned as green land on which it is forbidden to build. In addition, discriminatory policies in the allocation of state land have further reduced the possibilities for Israeli Arabs to obtain permits to build homes to accommodate their growing housing needs. The resulting long-standing problem of lack of building permits in the Arab sector has led many to eventually build their homes without permits and these homes are frequently demolished. Whereas government policies and planning regulations have curtailed the growth and development of Arab towns and villages, in the Jewish sector the policy has been to expand existing towns and villages and establish hundreds of new villages. Moreover, even though violations of planning and building regulations are also widespread in the Jewish sector, it is in the Arab sector that homes are frequently demolished.

This report analyses the main patterns and trends of forced eviction, house demolition and destruction of property by the Israeli army and security forces in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the light of international human rights and humanitarian law.

Amnesty International has campaigned against the practice of house demolition for years.⁴ The organization’s researchers have visited hundreds of sites of homes and other properties destroyed by the Israeli army and security forces, and interviewed the inhabitants, neighbours, eyewitnesses, relief workers and others. In compiling this report the organization has drawn on information gathered in the course of its research and field work, as well as on information provided by or available from other sources. These include the Israeli authorities, bodies, agencies and mechanisms of the United Nations, international organizations working on the ground, and Israeli and Palestinian lawyers and non-governmental organizations.

The issue of forced evictions, house demolitions and destruction of properties in Israel and the Occupied Territories is only one of the many issues on which Amnesty International campaigns. The organization’s main concerns include:

• extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings of Palestinians by the Israeli army and security forces;


• deliberate killings of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings and other indiscriminate and targeted attacks by Palestinian armed groups;


• the lack of concrete measures by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to stop and prevent killings of civilians, the lack of adequate investigations and prosecution for the majority of killings, and the impunity afforded by both sides to those who commit gross human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity;


• arbitrary detention without charge or trial for prolonged periods of individuals suspected of security-related offences and ill-treatment and/or torture of detainees by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority;


• increasingly stringent restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of Palestinians inside the Occupied Territories and the impact of these restrictions on the fundamental rights of the Palestinian population, including their right to work, to healthcare, to education and to food.

These and other concerns are addressed in numerous reports and other material issued by Amnesty International in recent years.⁵

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Between the two world wars the British authorities ruled Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which ended when the State of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948. Arab protests against a UN partition plan were followed by war between Arab and Israeli armies from which Israel emerged victorious. More than 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from Israel and became refugees in the Gaza Strip, West Bank or neighbouring countries. Two parts of mandate Palestine remained outside Israel: the Gaza Strip, which came under Egyptian administration; and the eastern part of Palestine, which was taken over by Jordan in 1950 and became known as the West Bank. Hostilities between Israel and Egypt, Syria and Jordan in June 1967 ended in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel) and the Gaza Strip. Israel also occupied Syria’s Golan Heights (annexed by Israel in 1980) and the Sinai Peninsula (later returned to Egypt).

The Palestinians who remained in Israel after the establishment of the state became Israeli citizens but were placed under military rule until 1966. Many became internally displaced after they were expelled or fled from their villages. The land and properties of the Palestinians refugees and of those internally displaced by the war were confiscated. Today more than 1,000,000 Palestinian and Bedouin citizens of Israel, known as Israeli Arabs, account for some 18% of the population of Israel. Most of them live in northern Israel, in the Galilee and Triangle regions; about 100,000 live in towns known as mixed towns (such as Haifa, Ramle, Lod, Jaffa and Akko); and some 130-140,000 Bedouins live in the Negev in the south of the country. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip some 3,500,000 Palestinians, more than 1,500,000 of them refugees,⁶ have lived under Israeli military occupation since 1967 and some 200,000 live in East Jerusalem with a special status as permanent residents.

Recent developments:

Between 1993 and 1995, negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led to a series of agreements, known as the Oslo Accords, between the two parties. A Palestinian Authority (PA) was established, with jurisdiction over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1995 Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing activist opposed to the peace agreement with the Palestinians. After that, many of the provisions of the Oslo Accords were never implemented.
In September 2000 a Palestinian uprising (intifada) broke out. Since then some 2,500 Palestinians, more than 450 of them children, have been killed by the Israeli army and more than 900 Israelis, including more than 100 children, have been killed by Palestinian armed groups. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been arrested by the Israeli army, and some 6,000 remain detained, many on charges of involvement in attacks against Israelis. The Israeli army has destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land and hundreds of other properties. This, and the stringent restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians within the Occupied Territories, have led to the virtual collapse of the Palestinian economy. Most Palestinians in the Occupied Territories live below the poverty line and depend on some form of assistance for survival. Since the outbreak of the intifada in 2000 the Oslo Accords have essentially become moot. The PA remains in place but its ability to function has been increasingly curtailed. The Israeli army has repeatedly bombed and raided most of the PA security services installations, prisons and other institutions, and it routinely carries out raids and incursions in Palestinian towns, refugee camps and villages which are supposed to be under the PA’s jurisdiction. For the past two years Israel has confined PA President Yasser ‘Arafat to his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah, and does not allow Palestinian officials, legislators and civil servants to move freely in the Occupied Territories. Recently rivalries and infighting within the PA leadership, its security and political apparatus and among Palestinian political factions have increased, resulting in a further deterioration of the situation and an increasing spread of lawlessness.

CASE STUDY: THE BASHIR FAMILY

The case of the Bashir family illustrates many of the patterns of forced eviction, house demolition and destruction and expropriation of land described in this report. The family – Khalil Bashir, a school principal, his wife Souad, their six children and his elderly mother – has long been under pressure from the Israeli army to leave their home and their land, situated on the edge of the village of Deir al-Balah, in the Gaza Strip, near the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom.

From the beginning of October 2000 onwards Israeli soldiers frequently raided the house and prohibited the family from using the upper floors and pressured them to leave the house. The family complied with the restrictions, fearing that if they left the house would be destroyed. In November 2000 Khalil Bashir’s brother, who lived next door (about 150 meters to the east, further away from the Kfar Darom settlement) gave in to the Israeli army pressures and moved to temporary accommodation, so as to keep his family safe during what he thought would be a passing tension. Within days the army destroyed his house and most of the Bashirs’ land around the house, uprooting the olive and date trees and the vegetable orchard.

A few days later, on 4 December 2000, the army destroyed Khalil Bashir’s parents’ old house, adjacent to his, and occupied the upper floor of his house. Since that date the Bashir family have been confined to the ground floor, while the top floor has been turned into an army base. The middle floor does not appear to be used by the soldiers but the family is not allowed upstairs. The soldiers have placed their own ladder at the back of the house to access the top floor and the roof, have blocked the upstairs windows and the edges of the roof-terrace with sandbags and camouflage, and have made holes in the external walls all around the house which they use as sniper positions. Loud banging and debris thrown into the courtyard indicate that internal walls have been torn down.

Even though the Israeli army has full control of the house, from the house itself and from the watchtower a few meters away⁷, soldiers have frequently opened fire on the house from their watchtower and from the settlement. The sides of the house which face the army position and the settlement are riddled with bullets, including heavy calibre bullets and shells, and the ground floor rooms facing the army position (the kitchen and a bedroom) have sustained extensive damage from army fire. Amnesty International delegates have visited the Bashirs’ house on several occasion in the past three years and inspected the damage. Three members of the Bashir family have been injured by Israeli army fire. On 13 October 2000, Khalil Bashir’s 17-year-old son Yazen was shot and injured in the leg while he was getting water to put out a fire in the garden, apparently caused by a flare thrown by the army. On 28 April 2001 soldiers shot from the watchtower into Khalil Bashir’s bedroom while he was lying on his bed reading, injuring him in the back of the head and neck, and causing extensive damage inside the room. On 18 February 2004 Israeli soldiers shot from the watchtower opposite the house and seriously injured Khalil Bashir’s 15-year-old son Yusuf. At the time Yusuf was outside the house with his father, seeing off their visitors, two United Nations (UN) staff members and a staff member of the United Nations Association International Services (UNAIS). The three visitors had just got into their vehicle, clearly marked with the UN emblem, and were about to leave when a single shot was fired from the Israeli army watchtower, about 20 meters from where they were standing. Yusuf was hit by a bullet in the back, very close to the spine. At the time of writing he remains in hospital and it is not know if he will walk again.

Over the past three and a half years the Israeli army has progressively destroyed all the cultivated land around the Bashirs’ house. By the late summer of 2001 only the garden in front of the house remained untouched, with well-tended palm trees and flowers. On the evening of 23 August 2001 the army uprooted the palm trees and the rest of the vegetation and destroyed the low wall separating the garden from the road. Four days later the army destroyed a chicken barn adjacent to the house. The destruction of the Bashirs’ garden appears to have been part of a large scale operation carried out by the IDF in the area in retaliation for a Palestinian mortar attack against the Kfar Darom settlement earlier that day.⁸

The repeated attacks against the Bashirs’ home and the destruction and damage of their houses and land serve no apparent security purpose and appear to be part of a pattern of intimidation and harassment aimed at forcing the family to leave their home.

In January 2004 the Israeli army issued a seizure order for some land belonging to Palestinians in the area around the Kfar Darom settlements (see p. 27). Part of the land being seized belongs to the Bashir family and is situated behind their house. An appeal challenging the seizure order is currently pending.

Usually houses which have been taken over by the Israeli army cannot be accessed without prior authorisation from the Israeli army but for the first three years some representatives of international organizations and foreign journalists were able to visit the Bashir family without seeking permission from the army. However, in February 2004 Israeli soldiers in the watchtower opposite the Bashirs’ house told international UN staff members that they needed prior authorization from the army’s command to visit the family. The family has consistently avoided receiving relatives or friends out of fear that the Israeli army may harm local visitors or accuse them of attempting to attack the soldiers stationed in the house.

Khalil Bashir and his family told Amnesty International about the difficult situation in which they live: "I do not understand why the soldiers behave as they do, why they treat us as if we were enemies when they know that we have never caused any harm to them or to others. We have always extended our hands in peace and still do, in spite of everything. We are absolutely opposed to violence and have told the soldiers many times that so long as we are in our house we will never allow anyone to shoot from this house. The soldiers know that no attack, no act of violence has ever been committed by us or by anyone else from this house. It is for this reason that we will never leave our house, because we know that the minute we leave the house empty the army will claim that it was used by gunmen and will destroy it. That is what they did to my brother and to many others. They forced my brother to leave, and as soon as he left they destroyed his house. I do not understand this logic, what are they thinking when they do such things? One day they destroy a piece of land and the next week they destroy something else, as if it was a game, but they destroy people’s lives. They are putting our family through a terrible ordeal. But in spite of everything we believe in peace, because we should live in peace as good neighbours. This is what we have always taught our children and this is what we believe even now with the soldiers on top of us, raiding our home, shooting at us and humiliating us. We do not respond to the soldiers’ provocations. We do not respond to violence with violence and we are determined not to leave our home, no matter what they do. This ordeal has been going on for years, they took some of our land, raided my house, and in the last years it got so much worse; our greatest worry is for the safety of our children."

In the past two years three of the Bashirs’ oldest children have gone to study abroad. In February 2004, shortly after the Israeli army shot Yusuf Bashir, his 18-year-old sister Amira, who is now studying abroad, told Amnesty International: "I am so worried for my brother, I don’t know if he will walk again; and I am worried about my three little siblings, my parents and my grandmother and I pray that they will be safe, that nothing will happen to them. The home should be the safest place but for our family it is not; but it is our home and we should not be forced to leave it. No one should be forced out of their home and we won’t leave our house. We have never harmed any Israeli or anyone else. We just want to live in our home in peace".

III. PATTERNS AND IMPACT OF PROPERTY DESTRUCTION AND FORCED EVICTION

The destruction of houses, land and other properties falls into two categories: houses built without a permit and houses, land and other properties which the Israeli army claims are destroyed for "military/security needs", including the destruction of the family homes of Palestinians suspected of carrying out attacks.

1. Unlicensed houses: The destruction of houses in the Arab sector in Israel and in parts of the Occupied Territories on the ground that they were built without a permit. Hundreds of homes have been demolished in the Arab sector in Israel in the past few years alone, whereas such demolitions in the Jewish sector are an extremely rare occurrence, if they occur at all. Similarly, in the Occupied Territories it is invariably Palestinian homes and other properties which are destroyed while Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law, continue to be expanded. The main reasons why many houses are built without a permit in the Arab sector in Israel and in parts of the Occupied Territories, including in East Jerusalem, is the fact that it is very difficult and often impossible for Israeli Arabs and Palestinians to obtain building permits in these areas.


2. "Military/security needs": The vast majority of the homes, land and other properties destroyed by the Israeli army in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in recent years fall under the category, which Israel defines as destruction for "military/security needs". The scale of the destruction in this category is massive, including more than 3,000 Palestinian homes, large areas of cultivated land, hundreds of commercial properties (shops, workshops and factories) and public buildings, as well as tens of thousands of other homes and properties which have been damaged, many beyond repair. The criteria used by the Israeli army to define "military/security needs" are extremely broad. This category can be divided into four, at times overlapping, sub-categories:
   
   
   
   1. Punitive demolitions of houses belonging to families of Palestinians who are known or suspected of involvement in suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers have become routine. The Israeli authorities assert that these homes are destroyed as a "deterrent", in order to dissuade other Palestinians from carrying out attacks against Israelis. Usually these houses are blown up by the Israeli army, frequently resulting in neighbouring houses also being destroyed or damaged.
   
   
   2. Houses, land, and other properties which the Israeli authorities claim it is necessary to destroy for "security needs", notably to build or expand roads or other infrastructure for the benefit or protection of Israeli settlers or soldiers.
   
   
   3. The destruction of houses, land and other properties which the authorities contend were used or could be used by Palestinian armed groups to shoot or launch attacks against Israelis, and which Israel argues it is entitled to destroy at any time. This category, which the authorities often refer to as "preventive", may include any house or property near Israeli settlements, army positions and roads used by Israeli settlers and soldiers. When carrying out this kind of operations, the Israeli army frequently targets several homes, and on a number of occasions tens or even scores of homes have been destroyed in one single operation. Even though the Israeli authorities claim that the destruction is intended to prevent future attacks from the area, such demolitions are often also manifestly carried out in retaliation for Palestinian attacks and as a form of collective punishment on the inhabitants of a given area. In some cases the destruction also serves the purpose of removing Palestinians from areas where Israel has a particular interest in seizing control of the land, notably near Israeli settlements and army positions, along the Green Line between Israel and the Occupied Territories and along the border with Egypt, with a view to subsequently expanding Israeli settlements or building new roads or other infrastructure intended to consolidate and/or benefit Israeli settlements and/or strengthen Israel’s hold on the land.
   
   
   4. Properties which Israeli authorities claim were destroyed in the course of combat activities.
   
   

The majority of the homes that were demolished and damaged on grounds of "military/security-related needs" were located in the Gaza Strip and a large percentage were in refugee camps. These demolitions have targeted the poorest and most vulnerable sector of the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories. The destruction of homes is mostly carried out at night, with no prior notification. Usually, the only warning for the inhabitants is the rumbling of armored bulldozers and tanks approaching and beginning the destruction. Their arrival is often accompanied by Israeli army gunfire in an effort to make the residents vacate their homes and discourage resistance. The occupants of the targeted houses are almost without exception given no opportunity to salvage their possessions. In some cases people have been injured and even killed by collapsing structures or while fleeing; others were beaten, ill-treated or fired upon as they tried to protest or resist the demolition.

1. Impact on the economic situation

In addition to the demolition of thousands of homes, the extensive destruction of agricultural land will continue to have severe repercussion on the Palestinian economy for many years to come. Hundreds of thousands of olive, citrus, almond, date and other trees have been uprooted by Israeli army bulldozers, along with vegetable and other crops. Olive trees particularly take many years to grow and become productive. The trees and orchards uprooted in the past three and half years constituted a source, and in many cases the only source, of livelihood for hundreds of thousands of people. Agriculture was a major sector of the Palestinian economy, especially since most Palestinians who used to work in Israel have no longer been permitted to do so in recent years. Many had invested their savings to develop and improve their family farms with costly greenhouses and irrigation networks, only to see them destroyed by Israeli army bulldozers, often before they could harvest their crops. The land on which trees and crops stood has since been made inaccessible to Palestinian farmers and it now either lies in waste or is being used by the Israeli army. Even if Palestinians were allowed to resume farming the land which has been destroyed in recent years, it would take a long time and considerable resources for it to become productive again.

2. Impact on women

"The children look to us, their parents, for protection and security and when our home was destroyed they were traumatized by the experience and destabilized by the situation we found ourselves in, without a home. People came to destroy our home and we, their parents, could do nothing to prevent it; they lost all their belongings and we could not replace them; I was no longer able to give them what they needed most, a home and a sense of security. I tried to comfort them but didn’t have the means to make them feel secure. I myself was so traumatized by what happened that I could not cope for quite a long time."

'Arabia Shawamreh, mother of seven children, whose home was demolished four times

The majority of the tens of thousands of people who have been forcibly evicted and made homeless by the destruction of their homes are women and children, mostly refugees. All those whose homes have been destroyed have been affected, individually and as families, as they are forced to make adjustments and live in conditions which often place additional strains on their family relations.

Most Palestinian women do not work outside the home and their house is the space which they feel is their own. Men spend more time outside the house for work and social activities, and children go to school and play outside, whereas for most women the running of the house is mainly their responsibility or their primary activity. Whether they work outside the house or not, women devote a significant amount of their time and energy in unremunerated and often overlooked work in the home, and are therefore particularly affected by forced eviction and the destruction of their homes. When families are made homeless by the demolition of their homes, women bear the brunt of rebuilding the home.

In most cases the families whose homes have been demolished cannot afford to pay for alternative accommodation and have therefore been forced to move in with relatives, who often do not have sufficient space to accommodate an additional family. Since women spend more time in the house it is they who are more affected by the discomfort of living in someone else’s space, where they can no longer take responsibility for the administration of the family space and activities.

In addition to the practical problems, the loss of privacy and space often puts strain on the relationships between family members. Mothers often feel undermined in their role as a source of authority and emotional and material support for their children.
------------------------------------------------------------
"That was the beginning of a new type of suffering. Staying in my parents’ old house has robbed me of my freedom – I have to take their feelings constantly into account, and I do not want to become a burden. I also have to keep the house spotless; it is not our home so we have to be considerate. I am missing out on spending time with my husband because I’m so preoccupied with taking care of the children. I feel constantly tense, desperately needing a private place for my family; even a small room with mice would be fine for us! I want my children to be able to move around as they wish and to play freely with their toys. I want us to feel that we are still a family. I have become so depressed that I cannot eat, and this depression has had an effect on my husband and children."

Testimony of a woman whose home was demolished, to the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC), Ramallah, West Bank
------------------------------------------------------------

In its submission to the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in March 2003 the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) noted that:

"Women suffer immensely from forced eviction. … Domestic violence is higher in the precarious and often stressful situation of inadequate housing, especially before and during a forced eviction."

Women’s rights organizations in the Occupied Territories agree that Palestinian women are particularly affected by forced eviction and house demolition and by the increased tensions which often develop within the affected families as a result, including an increase in domestic violence. Moreover, women whose families have been made homeless as a result of the demolition of their homes feel even less able to complain and seek redress, both because they feel that in the face of the loss of the family home their grievances are not seen as a priority and because the additional practical and financial difficulties caused by the destruction of the family home make it more difficult to find a solution to their individual problem.

IV. DESTRUCTION FOR "MILITARY/SECURITY NEEDS"

1. Punitive house demolition

On 3 March 2003 Noha Maqadmeh, a mother of 10 children who was nine months pregnant, was killed in her bed in the middle of the night when her home collapsed as Israeli soldiers blew up a neighbouring house, in the al-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. (The targeted house belonged to the family of a Palestinian who had carried out a shooting attack against Israeli soldiers three weeks earlier at the Gush Katif Junction). Noha’s husband and most of her children were injured, some of them seriously. Six other nearby houses were destroyed by the blast, leaving some 90 people homeless. Noha’s husband Shukri, still wearing a neck brace and in pain from the injuries he sustained when their home collapsed on the family, told Amnesty International: "We were in bed, the children were asleep; the bedroom was the most sheltered room, at the back of the house, away from the tanks shooting in the street. There was an explosion and walls collapsed on top of us. I pulled myself from under the rubble and called for help from my neighbours, but the tanks were shooting at anyone who went outside into the street and no one could come. I was in pain, didn’t know what to do. I started to dig in the rubble with my hands; first I found my two little boys and my three-year-old girl. Then my older boy and girl (17 and 16 years old) managed to get out from under the rubble and helped me to dig for my wife and the other children. Then my neighbours came in to help and one by one we found the other children but my wife remained trapped under the rubble with our youngest daughter, who is two; she was holding her when the wall fell on her. As we got to them I could hear that she was in pain, she was injured and she kept urging me to help the children, and the children were crying for their mother. We called an ambulance but it could not approach because the tanks were still outside. We wanted to carry her in a blanket to the nearby UNRWA clinic but the tanks were shooting at anyone who got out into the street. When the soldiers left my neighbours took us to hospital but she died before reaching the hospital. Maybe if the ambulance had been allowed to come, if she could have got to hospital soon, she would have been saved, I don’t know. She died, the baby who was due to be born a few days later died, and now our 10 children don’t have a mother anymore and we don’t have a home anymore. I still can’t move my neck; the children were injured and are traumatized. What can I tell them when they ask me why the Israelis did this to us? We never harmed anyone, they killed my wife and destroyed our lives."

According to the Israeli army "the demolition of houses of terrorists sends a message to suicide bombers and their accomplices that anyone who participates in terrorist activity will pay a price for their actions".⁹

The practice of destroying the homes of the families of Palestinians known or suspected of attacks against Israelis was widely used by Israel in previous decades but had been discontinued since 1997. It was resumed in 2001 and since then hundreds of houses have been destroyed for this reason in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel has never used this practice against Israeli Jews convicted of serious politically motivated crimes, such as the murder of the Prime Minister or bomb attacks against Palestinians or Israeli Arabs.

Since it resumed this policy in 2001 the Israeli army has destroyed close to 500 homes of families of known or suspected Palestinian attackers. These houses are usually blown up, whereas for other types of demolitions the army generally uses armored bulldozers, except for larger and sturdier buildings. The army uses powerful explosive charges and frequently nearby houses are also destroyed or seriously damaged in the process. In the past, when the Israeli army targeted the homes of families of known or suspected Palestinian attackers it often sealed, rather than destroyed, the houses, a measure which, unlike demolition, can eventually be reversed.¹⁰ However in the past three years the targeted houses have been systematically destroyed.¹¹

On 10 September 2003, the Israeli army blew up an eight-storey apartment building in the Wad Abu Kteila district of Hebron. 68 people were made homeless, 53 of them women and children.

Hana ‘Ajluni, who lived in the building, told Amnesty International: "My husband was in hospital and I was at home with my five children: Muhammad who is just two months old, Rania, 2, ‘Umar, 4, Rami, 5, and Shadi, 11. At about 3 or 4am I heard shooting and sound bombs and got up in a panic. The soldiers were shouting in Arabic ‘those who want to live get out and those who stay will die’. They kept shouting but I don’t know what; I froze, didn’t know what to do. Then I grabbed the children and started to leave the building; the soldiers were still shooting as we reached the front door of the building to get out. One of my neighbours, Basem, was injured in the neck. As we stood outside the front door the soldiers made all of us women take off our headscarves and all the men undress, there in the street in front of us and the children. Then they handcuffed and blindfolded all the men one by one and took us across the road and put us all (women and children) together in a room, and the men in another room. Before they took us into that house they had put all the residents of that house into one room. Basem, who was injured in the neck, was not taken to hospital until a few hours later. At about 10am they let us women and children go out but we could not return to our homes because the soldiers were still shelling the building. The men were kept until about 6pm. At about 2pm the soldiers took out the bodies of two armed men they had been chasing but we were still not allowed to go back to our homes. I kept wondering how much damage there would be to my apartment; I had no idea that I would never see my home again. At about 6pm the soldiers blew up the building but it did not collapse; the first three floors were partially destroyed but the building was still standing, but we could not go back in anymore because it was very dangerous. The following morning the soldiers put more explosives and the whole building collapsed, as you see it now. When my husband came home from hospital the following day he found that we don’t have a home any more. We had been living in this building for six months only, we had bought our apartment, spent all our savings; it was a beautiful and spacious apartment with four bedrooms; it was a new building, Now we are living in a tent, with nothing ..."

A nine-year-old child, Tha’ir Muhammad al-Suyuri, who lived in a nearby building, was killed by shrapnel from a shell fired by an Israeli army tank during the attack. He had been standing at the kitchen window to see what was happening. Tartil Abu Hafez Ghaith, an 18-year-old student, was also standing at her kitchen window one floor above, and was seriously injured in the stomach by shrapnel from the same tank shell.

The two armed Palestinians who were killed inside the building did not live there and the inhabitants of the building said they were not known to them.¹² It is not entirely clear what was the reasoning of the Israeli army behind the destruction of this building. The Israeli army announced that it had "...demolished the house of Abdallah Kawasamah, and his brother, Basal Shafik Kawasmah. The two Hamas operatives planned many terrorist attacks and dispatched a number of terrorists".¹ However, according to the inhabitants of the building neither man lived in the building. The building was new and contained 26 apartments, 16 of which were inhabited (the families had moved in the previous few months) and the rest were not yet occupied. The building belonged to ‘Umar Hassan al-Qawasmi and one of the tenants in the building was Jawad ‘Umran al-Qawasmi, whose son Fu’ad had had his house destroyed by the Israeli army on 18 May 2003.¹⁴ The al-Qawasmi family is a very large extended family. Most of the 15 other families who lived in the building had bought their apartments.

The Israeli authorities contend that these demolitions are not intended to punish the families of suicide bombers and others known or suspected of involvement in attacks, but rather to "deter" potential attackers, who may refrain from getting involved in attacks if they know that their families will be made homeless and will suffer because of their actions.

Amnesty International considers these punitive forced evictions and house demolitions as a flagrant form of collective punishment, a violation of a fundamental principle of international law. The Israeli authorities’ claim that such demolitions are effective in dissuading potential attackers is entirely irrelevant in light of International humanitarian law, which places clear limits on the actions which an occupying power may take in the name of security, and the absolute prohibition on collective punishment is one of the most important of these rules. Collective punishment is never permissible under any circumstances.

The al-Najmah family, whose son Shadi participated in a shooting attack in Netanya on 9 March 2002, in which two Israeli civilians were killed and 50 wounded, was punished for the act committed by their son. The family house in al-‘Ayn refugee camp in Nablus was destroyed on 22 October 2002 at 2.30am. Shadi’s parents and siblings, including a married brother with his wife and their child, lived in the house. The powerful explosive charge used by the Israeli soldiers to blow up the al-Najmah family house also destroyed six other nearby houses in which nine families lived. The 61 inhabitants of these houses were left homeless as a result. One of the destroyed houses belonged to Maryam Sheikh. She told Amnesty International: "This was our home, for me, my three sons and my daughters-in-law and their children, 27 of us in all. One of my sons raised birds for a living; all the birds were killed when the army blew up the houses; he had 4,000 shekels worth of birds at the time. The army gave us no time to take out anything; just a few minutes to gather the children and get out of the house". The following day the Israeli army issued a statement announcing that it had destroyed the al-Najmah house, but making no mention of the fact that six neighbouring houses were also destroyed when the soldiers blew up the al-Najmah house.¹⁵

2. "Preventive" and "security" destruction

2.1 The West Bank

Forty-year-old Nabila al-Shu’bi, who was seven months pregnant, her three children Anas, ‘Azzam and ‘Abdallah, aged 4, 7 and 9, her 48-year-old husband Samir, her sisters-in-law Fatima and ‘Abir (aged 57 and 38 respectively) and her 85-year-old father-in-law ‘Umar, were left to die under the rubble of their home, when it was demolished by Israeli army bulldozers on 6 April 2002 in the old city of Nablus. The Israeli army kept the area under strict curfew for days, denying access to rescue workers, and it was not until a week later, on 12 April, that their bodies were found under the rubble of the house by relatives and neighbours. It is not known if they were killed by the collapsing walls or if they died later from injuries or of asphyxiation. Two other relatives survived trapped under the rubble for a week.

When the army briefly lifted the curfew on 12 April 2002 Nabila’s brother-in-law, Mahmud ‘Umar, started to dig in the rubble of the house with the help of his neighbours, hoping to find his relatives alive. They continued to dig after the Israeli army re-imposed the curfew after two hours, in spite of warning shots fired by Israeli soldiers in their direction. They first came across a small opening on the ground floor of where the house once stood; miraculously, in the small space that remained, 67-year-old Shamsa and her 68-year-old husband ‘Abdallah were still alive. The rescuers went on digging through the night and eventually found the bodies of the other eight members of the family, all huddled in a circle in a small room.

Neighbours whose homes were demolished at the same time as the al-Shu’bi’s house and who fled when the demolition began, told Amnesty International that the soldiers did not warn the residents to evacuate the houses before beginning the demolition. No comment was issued by the Israeli army about individual demolitions during these large-scale military operations.¹⁶

Large scale destruction of houses and other properties in the West Bank began in early 2002, when Israel launched a series of prolonged offensive operations, incursions and raids in refugee camps and towns throughout the West Bank. In every refugee camp and town they raided, Israeli soldiers left a trail of destruction. Army tanks rolled over parked cars, broke down walls and house fronts and smashed electricity poles. Extensive damage was also caused to houses, shops and other buildings by bullets and tank rounds.

The largest single demolition operation carried out by the Israeli army was in Jenin refugee camp in April 2002. The army completely destroyed the al-Hawashin quarter, an area of 400 x 500 meters, and partially destroyed two additional quarters of the refugee camp, leaving more than 800 families, totaling some 4000 persons, homeless.¹⁷ In the course of this and other Israeli army offensives there was considerable armed resistance by Palestinians, and the Israeli authorities claimed that the army destroyed the area in the course of combat with Palestinian gunmen. However the evidence, including aerial photographs of the refugee camp, indicates that when the Israeli army carried out much of the bulldozing of houses the armed clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen had already stopped and Palestinian gunmen had already been arrested or had surrendered.¹⁸ After thorough investigation of the Israeli army operations in Jenin and Nablus. Amnesty International concluded that the extensive destruction of homes and properties by the Israeli army was not justified by military necessity and as such constituted a war crime.

Since mid-2002 Israeli army raids in refugee camps in the West Bank have been less intensive and prolonged but more frequent, and destruction of Palestinian homes and other properties by the army in the course of such operations has continued. Amnesty International considers that most of the destruction carried out in these raids has been unnecessary and/or disproportionate.

On the morning of 5 September 2003 Israeli soldiers blew up a seven storey building in Nablus in which eight families lived, including 31 children, most of them less than 12 years old. Ibtisam, a teacher and mother of four children (three girls aged 13, 9 and 9 months and one boy aged 11) told Amnesty International: "At about 9-9.30 pm Israeli soldiers called on all of us living in the building to get out; they used a megaphone and spoke in Arabic; they said we had to leave the building immediately. We were in pajamas, the children were in bed already; me and my husband took the children from their bed and we all went downstairs as we were, we didn’t even have time to get dressed. It was the same for the other neighbours; we all have children, we all scrambled to get the children from their bed and get out. It was a panic; I didn’t have time to take milk or anything else for my baby; I just had time to wrap her up. We were scared, didn’t know what was happening. I was still in pain from the recent back operation I have had and I tried to explain this to the soldiers but they were rude and did not allow me to sit down. They took us all to the school across the road (the Said Ibn ‘Amr School), blew up the door to get it open and put us all inside, we women and children in the basement and all the men on the third floor. We were kept there all night, with no food, water, nothing; we had no idea what was happening with our husbands, we were worried; we kept trying to get the children to sleep but most cried and did not sleep. There was a lot of shooting, heavy shooting from tanks. At about 6am the soldiers allowed me and four other women who had small babies to go back into the building to get milk for the babies; we needed things to change the babies and for the other children too but the soldiers only gave us 5 minutes. The building was in a bad state, it had been fired at a lot. Before we were allowed to go in, at about 3.30am, the soldiers had sent one of the men in with a group of soldiers to inspect the place, then they sent him back to the school and later they sent him back in with another of the men; just the two of them without the soldiers, and told them to go bring the body of the armed man they had killed. They found the armed man who had been killed by the army; his head and right arm were missing, his left arm was broken and he had other injuries. He was armed. The two men took his body downstairs but left his gun upstairs and the soldiers sent them back up to get it and made them inspect the body before they approached. Then the soldiers took the two men back to the school and we all stayed there a few hours more. Then suddenly the soldiers blew up the building, without telling us and without allowing us to go in to get anything. We were left with nothing, in our pajamas. Why did they have to blow up the place? There was no one left in the building after they killed that armed man; he didn’t live in our building, we didn’t know him and didn’t know he had got into the building; how could we know? I stayed in my apartment, we all did, and all the more so after dark; how can we know who comes in and out of the building? It was a big building. We had saved for 14 years to buy this apartment; it was fully equipped and we had lived in it less than a year. Now we have nothing, all our furniture, clothes, documents, money, the children’s school bags, our photographs, everything got buried in the rubble. The children have been traumatized by what happened, they saw their home destroyed, and every day they see the rubble of their home and don’t have a home any more. Now me and the children are staying with my father and my husband moves between relatives; it is very difficult. What am I supposed to tell my children when they ask what happened and why this happened to us? We just want to live in peace and dignity, we ask for nothing else". There was no comment from the Israeli army about the destruction of this building.

2.2 Farms and agricultural land destroyed to build the fence/wall

Since the summer of 2002 the Israeli army has been destroying large areas of Palestinian agricultural land, as well as other properties, to make way for a fence/wall which it is building in the West Bank. The fence/wall is planned to run for some 650 kilometers, most of it through the West Bank, from north to south.¹⁹ It has an average width of 60 to 80 meters, including barbed wire, ditches, large trace paths and tank patrol lanes on each sides of the fence/wall, as well as additional buffer zones/no-go areas of varying depths. To date less than half of the route has been completed, mostly in the northern regions of the West Bank and around Jerusalem. In addition to the large areas of particularly fertile Palestinian farmland that have been destroyed, other larger areas have been cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall. According to the Israeli authorities the fence/wall is intended to block entry into Israel to Palestinian suicide bombers and other potential attackers. However, the fence/wall is not being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services. This in order to facilitate passage between Israel and more than 50 illegal Israeli settlements located in the West Bank.²⁰

"Military/security needs" cannot be invoked to justify measures that benefit unlawful civilian Israeli settlements at the expense of the occupied Palestinian population. The construction of the fence/wall inside the Occupied Territories is such a measure. Routing the fence/wall inside the West Bank in a manner purportedly aimed at protecting unlawful settlements and resulting in unlawful destruction and appropriation of Palestinian property and other violations of Palestinian rights is not proportionate or necessary. The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.

In the village of ‘Izbat Salman, near Qalqilya, the Quzmar family, like their neighbours, lost most of their land when the fence/wall was built around their village. ‘Abd al-Nasser Quzmar used to work in Israel but with the outbreak of the intifada access to Israel became impossible and his land became his only source of income, the only means for him to support his family of six. He invested all his savings in the family farm to make it more efficient and productive, built greenhouses and a sophisticated irrigation system for intensive cultivation. When Amnesty International first visited the village in October 2002, ‘Abd al-Nasser Quzmar and the other villagers had just learned that the fence/wall was going to encircle their village, destroying much of their land and cutting them off from the rest of it. Marks made by the Israeli army on stones and trees indicated where the fence/wall was going to be built, tightly around the village. However the villagers were not notified in advance of its exact locations. Some only found out when the Israeli army bulldozers arrived and started to uproot trees and whatever else was on the land and others found the military orders for the seizure of their land left by the Israeli army posted on trees. The villagers’ protests and court appeals were to no avail. Thousands of olive and citrus trees and vast vegetable orchards were destroyed to make way for fences, ditches and patrol lanes. Most of the remaining land belonging to ‘Abd al-Nasser Quzmar and his neighbours is now on the other side of the fence/wall, and it is difficult at best and often impossible for the farmers to reach their land.

2.3 The Gaza Strip

"You have a very striking picture of people fleeing. But fleeing to where? If you're in Rafah, you can't go south because there is a border, you can't go west because there is an ocean, and you can't go north and you can't go east because there is nowhere to go. You can't get out of Gaza. So, if you've been a refugee many times over there is no longer anywhere to where you can flee".

Peter Hansen, UNRWA Commissioner-General, speaking after the large-scale destruction of refugee homes in Rafah (Gaza Strip) in October 2003.

The destruction of homes has been most extensive in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world,²¹ where in the past three and half years close to 3,000 homes have been destroyed, most of them homes of refugees. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) between October 2000 and October 2003, more than 2,150 homes were destroyed and more than 16,000 damaged. In the same period 600 homes were destroyed in the West Bank.²² The families whose houses were demolished have been living in tents donated by humanitarian organizations, in already over-crowed relatives' homes or in rented apartments. However, the latter option is one which most victims of house demolition cannot afford, unless they receive assistance from the donor community. In his 2003 annual report to the UN Secretary-General, UNRWA’s Commissioner-General, referring to the large-scale destruction by the Israeli army of Palestinian refugees’ homes, stated that:

"the rhythm of shelter destruction in the Gaza Strip increased significantly"(23) and that UNRWA "was not able to keep up with the pace of shelter destruction".²⁴

In a three-day operation which started on 10 October 2003 the Israeli army destroyed some 130 houses and damaged scores of others in Rafah refugee camp and nearby areas, making more than 1,200 Palestinians homeless. According to UNRWA 76 refugee homes were completely destroyed, 44 were partially destroyed and 117 were damaged. Several non-refugee homes were also destroyed in the same operation near the refugee camp. Most of those left homeless were children.

Hamda Radwan, a 67-year-old refugee and several of her relatives were among those whose homes were destroyed. Hamda, a refugee, had previously lost her home in 1948, when she and her family had to flee from their homes in Jaffa during the war which followed the establishment of the state of Israel.

Suha ‘Abdallah, whose house was partially destroyed in the same operation, told Amnesty International: "There was no tunnel or anything in our home, anyone can come and see for themselves; part of the house is still standing but it is not safe anymore; the remaining walls could collapse at any moment. The soldiers know that we didn’t do anything, they came to the house and my husband and my son were there and they told us to leave immediately. We had no choice. They smashed some things and took other things and destroyed part of the house; why? And now what are we to do? Destroy the rest of the house ourselves so that it does not fall on anyone".

The already poor sewage system was further damaged by the Israeli army tanks and bulldozers, along with water mains and electricity and telephone lines. The Israeli army stated that during the operation it had uncovered three tunnels used by Palestinian armed groups to smuggle weapons from Egypt to the Gaza Strip.²⁵ In the preceding six weeks some 50 other houses were also demolished in Rafah, leaving hundreds more Palestinians homeless.

The area of the Gaza Strip where the largest number of homes has been destroyed is the refugee camp in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip, on the Egyptian border, where close to 1,000 homes have been destroyed and hundreds of others have been partially destroyed or very seriously damaged since October 2000. The refugee camp is very densely populated, with rows of houses separated by narrow alleyways. Up to the autumn of 2000 the first rows of houses in the refugee camp stood only meters from the border, which is controlled and patrolled by the Israeli army.(26) Since then, the massive destruction progressively carried out by the Israeli army has turned to rubble several rows of houses, up to 300 meters from the border.

On 23 June 2001, at about 3am, the Israeli army threw stun bombs and used loudspeakers to call on the inhabitants of the Barahmeh district of the refugee camp, along the Egyptian border, to leave immediately. Within two hours 20 houses were destroyed. The Barhoum family lost 11 houses, in which 75 people lived.

Suhaila Ahmad Salim Barhoum, a widow, lived in one of the demolished houses with her son and daughter and her brother. She told Amnesty International: "I woke up at the sound of the army shooting and I ran off inside the camp with the children; other times when the army shot we ran away and waited until the shooting stopped to come back. But this time the tanks came up against the houses with the bulldozers. When they left there was only rubble and dust left in the place of our houses. I had a nice house; four rooms, one for each of us, the kitchen, the bathroom and a hall. I built it four years ago. My previous house was demolished in 1982, when they established the border. Then my house was right where the border is now. After some time I got some compensation but it was not enough, and I had to wait to have enough money to build a new house. And now I won’t be able to build another house again; I have nothing left, nothing for my children".

Suhaila’s aunt, 70-year-old Fadhiya Suleiman Ibrahim Barhoum, lived in a house nearby with her two sons, their wives and their 12 children. She told Amnesty International: "They destroyed the house with all our things; I worked all my life and now I have nothing left, and my sons have nothing left and they have children; one has eight and the other has four. The house was three homes, one for me and two for my sons; there were six rooms and two bathrooms, one for each of them. We worked so much to build our house. God help us, I don’t sleep at night any more. And they keep destroying more houses, every day more houses; maybe tomorrow they’ll destroy this one too (her relatives’ house where she is staying). God help us; why this on top of everything else? The army also destroyed my land, over there, near the house (pointing to the rubble of her house nearby); all my olive trees, you can still see them, there; they uprooted all of them, didn’t leave even one; they uprooted them from here, from my heart; even if I plant other olive trees, I won’t live to see the olives; I’m too old, and I have no more land and no home, nothing."

The destruction in the Rafah refugee camp has been progressive, targeting row after row of houses – contrary to claims by the Israeli authorities that only houses used by Palestinians to shoot at Israeli soldiers patrolling the border and houses used as cover for tunnels used for smuggling weapons from Egypt were destroyed. However, already from the end of 2000 Palestinians living in the refugee camp close to the border told Amnesty International that Israeli soldiers had told them that many rows of houses were going to be destroyed. Statements by Israeli army and government officials confirm that this was indeed the intention. In January 2002 Major-General Yom Tov Samiah, Commander of Israeli army Southern Command at the beginning of the intifada, commenting on the destruction of some 60 Palestinian homes in Rafah refugee camp by the Israeli army on 9 and 10 January 2002 told Israeli Radio:

"These houses should have been demolished and evacuated a long time ago…Three hundred meters of the Strip along the two sides of the border must be evacuated... Three hundred meters, no matter how many houses, period."²⁷

Israeli officials have put forward different arguments for the demolition of these houses. Some argued that the demolitions had been made necessary because armed Palestinians attacked Israeli army troops from these houses and/or because the houses served as cover for tunnels used to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, while others indicated that the demolition was in retaliation for the killing of four Israeli soldiers at the Kerem Shalom army base in southern Israel on 9 January 2002.

Major-General Doron Almog, Commander of the Southern Command, said that "Most of our operations have focused on the Rafah area, as that is where the two Hamas terrorists came from."²⁸

The Israeli army spokesperson’s office issued different statements according to which the demolished houses: "served as cover for gunmen’s fire", "were suspected of serving as cover for tunnels used weapon in smuggling operations"; or were targeted "in response to the terrorist attack that killed an IDF officer and three soldiers."²⁹

North of Rafah, the Khan Yunis refugee camp has also suffered large-scale demolition of homes at the hands of the Israeli army. The refugee camp is surrounded on three sides (north, west and south) by the Gush Katif block of Israeli settlements, inside which are several Israeli army bases. Since its establishment the settlement block, a former Israeli army base which was turned over to Israeli settlers in 1977, has continued to expand and in 2000 the perimeter fence of the settlement was only meters from the outer row of houses of the Khan Yunis refugee camp. As in the Rafah refugee camp, the Israeli army has progressively destroyed row after row of homes in the refugee camp, clearing a large area of the camp near the perimeter of the Israeli settlement. To date more than 200 homes have been destroyed and a similar number have been damaged beyond repair and rendered uninhabitable. After the destruction of Palestinian homes in the refugee camp the Israeli army has built an eight-meter concrete wall around the perimeter of the Israeli settlement, where the settlement buildings are closest to the refugee camp.

In addition to the destruction carried out in the refugee camps, the Israeli army also destroyed hundreds of non-refugee homes and other properties throughout the Gaza Strip, notably in the agriculture sector. More than 10% of Gaza’s agricultural land has been destroyed in the past three and a half years. According to the UN Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) more than 1,800 acres of agricultural land were destroyed and more than 226,000 trees were uprooted in the Gaza Strip in 2002 and 2003 alone.³⁰

Much of the destroyed land was cultivated with olive, citrus, date and almond trees, and a variety of vegetables cultivated in greenhouses, a method used to maximize the production of the small amount of agricultural land available in the densely populated Gaza Strip. Frequently greenhouses were destroyed without allowing the farmers to dismantle them and at least salvage the frame and canvas for future use. Trees have been systematically uprooted by Israeli army bulldozers, even in cases where the farmers themselves had previously cut them down in the hope that they would be spared and could grow again.

Hundreds of wells, water storage pools and tanks, and electrical water pumps providing water for drinking, irrigation and other needs for thousands of people, have been destroyed along with tens of kilometers of irrigation networks. While destroying land and agricultural facilities Israeli bulldozers also uprooted electricity poles and cables, leaving the surrounding areas without electricity.

Another area frequently targeted by the Israeli army is around the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom, the Kissufim/Abu Houli and Katif/al-Matahin Junctions, and along the east-west road from the Gush Katif settlement to the Kissufim crossing into Israel. Vast areas of date palms, citrus orchards and other crops have been bulldozed by the Israeli army, ostensibly to protect the roads used by Israeli settlers.

The Abu Houli family, who lives and owns much of the land near the Kfar Darom settlement, has had nine houses (belonging to seven families), some 350 dunums of land, a food-processing factory, a plant nursery, a chicken farm (5,000 hens), three wells, and several water storage pools destroyed between October 2000 and August 2001. In all 84 members of the extended family have been affected by the destruction of their land, and 57 were made homeless. Around 10 October 2000 the Israeli army began to destroy some of the family land along the main north-south road (Salah al-Din road/Road No 4) and on 26 October they demolished the first of the family’s houses. Yusuf Muhammad Abu Houli, his wife and their nine children were in their home when they suddenly realized that the house was surrounded by tanks and bulldozers. He said: "We were stunned; all we had time for was to get the children to safety; by the time we had done that, within a few minutes the bulldozers began destroying the house and there was no time to salvage anything."

A few days later, on 9 November, ‘Abd al-Hakim ‘Abedrabbo Abu Houli (Yusuf’s nephew), an executive in UNRWA’s administration, married with four children, had his house demolished. He told Amnesty International: "The work of years smashed up just like that. The army came at 11pm with two tanks, one bulldozer and one jeep. They shouted at us to get out immediately or they would tear the house down over our heads. Our house was not the first to be demolished but still, you can’t really be prepared for something like that; we had no idea that this was just the beginning, that within a few months we would be left with nothing; it’s not just the houses, the furniture, the land, everything; it’s a part of our lives which has gone...." After the destruction of his house followed the houses of five other brothers and cousins, and more of the family land.

The Israeli army provided no account or explanation for the destruction of these and other properties in the area.

Between 20 and 22 November 2000 the Israeli army destroyed some 29 houses, and large areas of cultivated land in the area, making some 180 Palestinians homeless. The army made no mention of the destruction of these properties, which was seemingly carried out in retaliation for a roadside bomb attack carried out by Palestinians on the morning of 20 November against a bus carrying Israeli settlers between the Kfar Darom and Gush Katif settlements. Two Israelis were killed in the attack and nine others were injured, including five children.

Among the properties destroyed were five houses and several plots of cultivated land belonging to the ‘Abidin family and located to the north-east of the Katif/al-Matahin Junction, which were all destroyed on 21 November 2000. A sixth house and 50 dunums of palm and citrus trees belonging to the same family were destroyed in the same area on 12 August 2001. Seventy-five-year-old Halima ‘Abidin was living in the house, which belonged to her two sons, who were working abroad. The destruction of this house and of the land around it appears to have been in retaliation for a shooting incident which was reported earlier that day at the nearby junction.³¹ Halima ‘Abidin and her daughter Samiha told Amnesty International that they were in the house the whole day and that they had not seen anyone nor heard any suspicious movement near the house. Approximately two hours after the reported shooting, two Israeli army tanks and a bulldozers stationed at the nearby junction approached the ‘Abidin house and destroyed it and the land around it. Two electricity poles and the connecting cables were also crushed by the tanks in the process, cutting off the electricity supply to scores of families living in the area.

In the north of the Gaza Strip since the Autumn of 2000, the Israeli army has destroyed large areas of land, as well as houses and other properties. More recently one of the reasons given by the army to justify the destruction is the increase of firing by Palestinian armed groups of Qassam mortar/rockets from this area across the fence into Israel.

Between 14 May and 29 June 2003 the Israeli army conducted an incursion in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza in retaliation for the repeated firing of mortars by Palestinians towards the southern Israeli town of Sderot. The army demolished 21 houses, home to 35 refugee families, and damaged scores of others, destroyed several factories and large areas of olive and citrus tree orchards, bulldozed other land and destroyed water, sewage and road infrastructure.

On 15 May 2003, announcing the beginning of the operation the Israeli army stated: "During the operation, IDF forces took control of key positions overlooking areas used to fire Qassam rockets at Israeli communities and demolished four structures used by terrorists who have been linked to firing Qassam rockets. In addition, IDF forces exposed wide areas of vegetation used to conceal the launch of rockets. … The IDF will not allow terrorist organizations to interfere with the daily routine of the residents of Israeli communities in the Gaza Strip and nearby areas".³²

One of the properties destroyed was the tile factory of the Abu Ghaliun family, the biggest and most sophisticated tile factory in the Gaza Strip. Amnesty International delegates visited the factory and witnessed the destruction: a vast quantity of tiles had been smashed into pieces, cement bags had been torn and their contents scattered, large and sophisticated tile-making machines had been deliberately broken, some of the walls of the factory had been demolished and a large number of citrus trees near the factory had been uprooted.

The owner of the factory, Jamil Abu Ghaliun told Amnesty International: "The factory gave work to 600 people, including those who worked in the factory and those who laid the tiles in the housing projects. Now 600 families have lost their income as a result of the destruction of the factory. We had the best fully automated Italian machines and produced good quality tiles; we exported part of our production to Israel. I worked very hard all my life and the fruit of this hard work was destroyed for no good reason. No one ever fired mortars from anywhere near my factory; I am sure of that because the place was well guarded day and night; I always made sure of that. I have been working with the Israelis for decades; we buy material from them and sell them the tiles we produce. I would never have allowed anyone to commit any act which could jeopardize this. But the army came here, kept us all confined to our home under curfew for days and destroyed so much and left. How can such a thing help security? Has security improved? For me, for our family, this has destroyed our lives; and for so many others. What about the hundreds of families who depended on this factory for their living, to feed their children? I have never harmed any Israeli, on the contrary. The army knows that neither me nor my family have ever done anything against them; they themselves have never accused me or my children of anything, so why destroy our factory, our trees, our lives? More than US$ 5,200,000 worth of damage. You can see how deliberately, how purposefully they destroyed everything in here, crushing all the tiles, breaking all the cement bags and the machines which are so big and heavy and could not be destroyed in any other way they broke up with explosive, you can see it with your own eyes."

2.4 Destruction of "temporarily" confiscated land

On 5 February 2004 Israeli soldiers went to the outskirts of the village of al-Mutila (north-east of the West Bank) and left a plastic folder tied to a tree containing a seizure order for a piece of land on which Israeli army bulldozers had already been working for about a month, uprooting trees and crops. Even before receiving the seizure order the villagers had understood that their land was being taken and destroyed to make way for the fence/wall which Israel is building through the West Bank. The seizure order, signed by Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, Head of the Israeli army Central Command, is similar to the one shown below, and is dated 3 January 2004. According to the order 141.6 dunums of land are seized by the army until 31 December 2005. However, since the seized land is being used by the army to build a sophisticated fence/wall (equipped with electronic sensors and flanked on each side by deep trenches, trace paths, roads for army tanks patrols, and additional barbed wire fences) which is costing Israel some US$ 2 million per kilometer, few believe that the land seized for this project will ever be returned to their owners – as this would entail dismantling the costly fence/wall. Given that the work on the seized land was already well underway by the time the villagers received the seizure order, the owners of the land felt that there was no point in appealing against the seizure. In the past 20 months the land of thousands of Palestinian families in the West Bank has been "temporarily" seized in the same manner and destroyed to make way for the fence/wall.

Palestinian land seized by the Israeli army for "military/security needs" has most often been used to expand and build Israeli settlements and related infrastructure, notably roads for the settlers and most recently a fence/wall which separates Israeli settlements in the West Bank from Palestinian towns and villages.

The process began after Israel’ occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 and continues today. On paper the land is not confiscated but only "temporarily" seized by the Israeli army for unspecified "security" needs for a set period only. But such seizure orders can be extended indefinitely and in the overwhelming majority of cases the land "temporarily" seized by the Israeli army has never been returned to its owners. Hence, in practice land "temporarily" seized is invariably lost. For Palestinians the loss of land means the loss of livelihood, as agriculture has become one of the key means of subsistence since the Israeli labor market has been mostly closed to Palestinians.

Seizure orders are generally not delivered to the owners of the land but are left on the seized land, often stuck on trees, and often not for days or weeks after the date of coming into force of the seizure orders. In any event, most owners of seized land no longer feel that it is worth it to appeal. Few have the financial resources for the legal costs and most believe it is futile to engage in a process which invariably fails them. In the 37 years of Israeli military occupation most of the "temporary" seizures have become a permanent reality. (See chapter on land confiscation/ expropriation).

In January 2004, the Israeli army issued at least 12 "temporary" seizure orders for tracts of land near Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. The orders, signed by the Israeli army Commander in the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Dan Harel, state:

In the framework of my authority as commander of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the region, in accordance with all laws and security legislation, I am of the opinion that it is requested for imperative military needs, in wake of the special security circumstances which exist in the region; I hereby declare the following: I hereby declare that the land is being seized for military needs.

The land shall be maintained by the IDF and the sole maintenance shall be handed to the land officer at the Southern Command Headquarters, via the Ministry of Defense Coordinator at the administration.

The date of entry into force of this declaration is the date of its signature and until 31 December 2005.

As is current practice, attached were maps of the plots of land being seized and a standard printed form with blank gaps which are filled in by the army commander with details such as the location of the seized land, the name of the owner, the dates etc. The form states:

Notice regarding the seizure of land for military needs

Notice is hereby given that on ___ the _____ the Commander of the IDF in the Gaza region, in wake of the special circumstances which exist in the region, and for imperative military needs, has ordered that the land marked on the appended map(33) to the order regarding seizure of land (2004-2) (Kfar Darom security fence) (Gaza region) shall be seized for the construction of security components.

Your are hereby given a seven-day period to submit reservations to the Commander of the IDF in the Gaza region regarding his decision. Reservations may be submitted as mentioned to the Commander of the IDF in the Gaza region, through the offices of the (IDF) Legal Advisor of the region:

Fax: ________

Name of the recipient of the notice: ___________

Statues of recipient: owner/maintainer Bloc ____ Plot _____

ID number: ____________

Name of the IDF Commander: ______________

Signature: _______________

Date:______________

The seized land is located partly between the two sections of the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom (central Gaza Strip) and partly near its outskirts. This settlement, like others, was built on confiscated Palestinian land, some of it by means of "temporary" seizures issued decades ago. The owners of the seized land have appealed the seizure but have little hope that their appeal will be successful

3. Israel's justifications for the destruction in the Occupied Territories: "military/security needs"

Setting the trend

In the days that followed the outbreak of the intifada, the Israeli army abandoned policing and law enforcement tactics and adopted military measures generally used in armed conflict, including large-scale destruction of houses, land and other properties. This pattern quickly became entrenched and widespread and has continued to date.

In East Jerusalem and within Israel, protestors participating in demonstrations after 29 September 2000 threw stones. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, although most of the demonstrations involved stone-throwing protests, on a number of occasions firearms were used against Israeli security forces by members of the PA's security forces or others.

In responding to these demonstrations, Israeli security forces repeatedly resorted to excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of the security forces nor others were in imminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings. In the first three weeks of the intifada more than 100 Palestinians, including 27 children, were killed by the Israeli security forces. In addition, the army destroyed homes, cultivated land and factories. Much of the initial destruction was in the area around Netzarim/Shuhada Junction, in the Gaza Strip, near the site of demonstrations. For example, on 7 and 8 October 2000 the Israeli army destroyed two four-storey buildings, known as the "twins", which were home to 39 families, large tracts of cultivated land around the junction, and a nearby metal foundry. After the demolition the Israeli army announced that it had:

"…carried out engineering works to remove the continual threat in Netzarim junction. Among these activities – the destruction of the buildings known as the ‘Twins’, the destruction of the nearby building known as ‘the factory’ and clearing the terrain several dozens of meters around the IDF position at the junction. ... Netzarim junction is a key position, controlling the main entry route into the Jewish settlement of Netzarim. The violence which occurred at the junction this last week, disrupted the daily life in the settlement".³⁴

The Israeli army claimed that Palestinian gunmen had fired towards army positions from these properties during the demonstrations. While law enforcement officials are entitled to respond to threats to their security and the security of others, the response must be proportionate; Amnesty International believes that the destruction of these residential buildings and land in these circumstances was a disproportionate response.

The Israeli authorities contend that destruction of houses and other property is entirely justified and proportionate to their "military/security needs" to prevent or respond to attacks by armed Palestinians against Israeli settlements and Israeli army positions. They describe this kind of destruction as "preventive" or "in the course of combat activities."

The "preventive" category is extremely broad. It includes destruction of properties from which the army claims attacks were carried out or properties which were used for cover during attacks. It also includes the destruction of properties to clear the army’s lines of sight in areas considered as sensitive, to create buffer zones around likely targets, and to clear areas in order to build fences or military installations. In addition, it includes destruction of property for the purpose of building roads to improve access between Israeli settlements within the Occupied Territories and between the settlements and Israel.

According to the Israeli authorities all such activities fall within the framework of "military/security needs", as they are deemed necessary to prevent attacks by Palestinians against Israeli settlements, settlers and soldiers in the Occupied Territories. According to the Israeli army:

"The source of authority for the Israeli Defense Forces to harm private property during times of fighting and due to military needs is part of the laws of war, which are part of the international law. Specifically it refers to regulation 23(g) of the Hague Convention of 1907 which permits destruction of property in cases in which ‘such destruction [is] imperatively demanded by the necessities of war…’"³⁵

Although insisting that it has the right to demolish whatever will assist its military operations, the Israeli army claims it applies the principal of proportionality to ensure that operations do not have a disproportionately adverse effect on civilians. Amnesty International disputes Israel’s interpretation of the permissible scope of property destruction under international law (see legal section). The circumstances surrounding the massive destruction of homes, land and other property in the Occupied Territories and its consequences for Palestinians belie the claim that the principle of proportionality enshrined in international law has been respected.

4. Definition of legitimate targets, combat activities and proportionality

The Israeli army contends that any house or property which is used in any way by members of Palestinian armed groups is a military target which may lawfully be attacked and destroyed at any time. These demolitions are described by the Israeli army as occurring "in the course of combat activities." The decision to engage in this type of demolition is left to the discretion of the commander in the field, and therefore such actions are not subject to legal deliberation, supervision or appeal.

Within the category defined as destruction for military/security needs, in practice there appears to be little or no difference between demolitions defined as "in the course of combat activities" and those described as "preventive". For example, a house from which a Palestinian gunman has allegedly fired at Israelis and a building, which – due to its proximity to a road or settlement – could be used to target Israelis, may both be destroyed at any time. Both these categories of demolition are also often carried out as a form of collective punishment in retaliation for attacks committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians or soldiers.

According to the Israeli army’s interpretation of international humanitarian law, given the spread of Israeli settlements, settlers’ roads and army positions throughout the densely populated Gaza Strip right next to Palestinian refugee camps, towns and villages, virtually every building or plot of land in the Gaza Strip could potentially be considered as a threat and hence as a military target for demolition.

This is clearly not the case. According to international humanitarian law, there are no military objectives in the Occupied Territories which Israeli forces may lawfully attack and destroy at any time. The Israeli security forces may target individuals using a property to attack soldiers or others. In such cases, however, they must use only as much force as is strictly necessary to counter any threat posed to their lives or the lives of others. Israeli forces may, in exceptional circumstances, seize or destroy Palestinian property for a legitimate military purpose – not for the expansion of illegal settlements or settlement infrastructure, nor in retaliation for attacks committed by Palestinians against Israelis. Palestinians affected must have a meaningful right to legally challenge any seizure or destruction order.

In the past three and a half years Israel has failed to uphold such principles by carrying out extensive destruction and eviction without adequate legal safeguards, violating the rights of tens of thousands of Palestinians to adequate housing and a decent standard of living.

5. Claims that property had been used for attacks

Israel’s most common assertion to justify the destruction of houses, land and other properties is that only properties which have proven to be a threat have been destroyed. The Israeli army’s announcements frequently claim that the destroyed properties have been used to carry out attacks. Often Palestinians do not deny that attacks or armed confrontations took place in the area at some point prior to the destruction, but deny that their properties were used to carry out attacks. In the overwhelming majority of cases the Israeli army has not specifically accused those whose houses, land and other properties it has destroyed of having themselves been involved in attacks, and it has not attempted to arrest or prosecute them.

According to the Israeli army’s reasoning, the fact that a suspect may have fired from, or run through, someone’s land or near someone’s house, factory or shop is enough for the property and everything around it to be destroyed – even though the owners or inhabitants played no part in the attack, had no knowledge of it and could not have prevented it. Palestinians whose homes and properties are near Israeli settlements, army positions or other sensitive locations find themselves in an impossible situation. Their movements in and around their properties are severely restricted by the Israeli army. Anyone, be they the owners of the property or trespassers, spotted in these areas at night, and in certain areas even during the day, risks being shot by the army. Therefore the army makes it nearly impossible, even for those inclined to do so, for property owners to protect their land from intruders who may carry out attack against Israelis. Yet, if someone carries out an attack from or near their property, they are punished by having their property destroyed.

Israeli officials have acknowledged to Amnesty International that it is often difficult to pinpoint the point of origin of armed attacks. This acknowledgment concerned mostly sources of Palestinian gunfire, which is easier to establish than the source of mortar fire, which has a variable trajectory and range. Indeed, Israeli soldiers have repeatedly been proved to have been mistaken in identifying sources of fire, even of gunfire at a very short distance. Hundreds of unarmed Palestinians, including children, women and elderly people, as well as foreign journalists and humanitarian workers have been killed in situations where the Israeli army wrongly claimed to have targeted sources of fire.³⁶

In addition, the Israeli army has generally not conducted ballistics, forensic or on-site investigations to determine the source of gunfire, mortar or other attacks. At times uncertainty is explicit in official Israeli statements, for example describing destroyed properties as being "thought to hide tunnels".³⁷

To date the Israeli army has not accounted for the exact number and location of properties it has destroyed, nor has it provided evidence that the specific properties were used to carry out attacks and were destroyed while being used for such a purpose. Amnesty International delegates, international humanitarian and human rights workers, journalists and others have repeatedly witnessed Israeli soldiers destroying and damaging houses, land and other properties at times when there were no disturbances or confrontations with Palestinians.

In this respect, it is significant that the Israeli authorities have consistently and vigorously opposed the presence of international human rights monitors, despite repeated calls by the international community, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations and representatives of civil society.³⁸ Amnesty International believes that international human rights monitors could help reduce violations by both sides and could play an important role to establish the veracity of the claims made by each side concerning the actions of the other side – including keeping an accurate record of the scale and circumstances of destructions carried out by Israel and of attacks by Palestinian armed groups.

6. Claims that the destroyed properties were "abandoned"

The Israeli authorities generally underplay the extent of the destruction and the number of people affected by it. They have remained evasive as to whether the army even keeps statistics on the numbers of houses they destroy (other than for the punitive demolitions) and of Palestinians they forcibly evict and make homeless. In most cases the Israeli authorities do not issue statements about demolition operations, and when they do, the announcements provide very few details and usually do not contain even the most basic information such as the number, type and location of the destroyed properties. The destroyed homes are not usually referred to as houses, but rather as "abandoned" or "unpopulated" "buildings" or "structures". The authorities also tend to avoid the word demolition to describe the destruction of houses and land, using instead expressions such as "engineering works" to "expose" or "clear" certain areas.³⁹ The destruction of agricultural land is hardly ever mentioned.

Amnesty International and other international organizations and journalists have frequently visited recently demolished homes. The sight of pots of cooked food, half-full bottles of soft drinks or shampoo, pieces of newspapers from the previous day, smashed fridges and television sets, clothes, children’s toys and schoolbooks lying amongst the rubble stood in stark contrast with Israeli army claims that the houses were "unpopulated" or "abandoned".

Although at times the inhabitants of the destroyed houses were not in their homes at the time of the destruction, this cannot be construed as abandonment. Palestinians who live in areas that regularly come under Israeli army fire, notably around settlements and army positions avoid using the rooms facing these positions if they can. However, many do not have rooms protected from the source of fire. Metal sheets against windows and doors, and thin corrugated roofing material offer little or no protection against frequent Israeli army shelling. Hence people in those areas often leave their homes when army raids, shooting or clashes intensify, and they return home when the tension decreases, usually the following day. However, leaving one’s home for a few hours or a few days to seek safe shelter elsewhere cannot be considered as having abandoned it.

In the Gaza Strip the very extensive damage caused by Israeli army gunfire and shelling to thousands of Palestinian houses facing Israeli army positions and settlements, and the manner and timing of much of the damage and destruction, suggests the Israeli army has responded disproportionately, and at times unnecessarily, to threats posed by armed Palestinians operating in these areas. Any destruction or damage aimed at forcing the civilian population in these areas to leave their homes violates international law.

7. The failure of the Israeli Supreme Court to protect the internationally guaranteed right to housing

In the case of demolitions for "military/security needs" classified as not in the course of combat activities, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that affected families must be given the right to appeal unless doing so would "endanger the lives of Israelis or if there are combat activities in the vicinity."⁴⁰ However, in a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that advance notice did not need to be given if it would hinder the success of the demolition, ⁴¹ a virtual green light for demolitions to go forward without the possibility of appeal for those affected. This is what happens in most cases.

In cases of advance notification of intended destruction where the owners of the targeted properties have appealed, the Israeli Supreme Court has usually accepted the Israeli army’s arguments and assessment of what constitutes military/security needs, and has permitted the demolitions. For example in a factory owner’s appeal against demolition to enable the construction of a new road near the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip, the Supreme Court accepted a long list of past security incidents in the area, as well as vaguely worded and unspecified intelligence that there was "intent" to use the property again as a base for attacks.⁴²

Amnesty International believes these rulings suggest that the Israeli Supreme Court has too readily accepted the Israeli army’s overly broad definition of what is militarily necessary (see legal section below). By endorsing this interpretation, the Supreme Court has failed to protect Palestinians in the Occupied Territories from arbitrary destruction of their homes and property and from forced evictions, leaving open the door for Israeli demolitions for almost any ostensible military purpose.


V. DEMOLITIONS OF UNLICENSED HOUSES: DISCRIMINATORY PLANNING AND BUILDING POLICIES AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES

"We have to begin to educate the Arab public to build high. We live in a small and crowded country and I see that in other Arab countries they build high. There is no reason that everyone in the Arab sector should live in houses"

Israeli Interior Minister Abraham Poraz, 21 January 2004

1. Background to the demolition of unlicensed houses

The Israeli authorities have for decades pursued a policy of demolishing houses and destroying land and other properties inside Israel and the Occupied Territories. In the overwhelming majority of cases those whose homes and properties have been destroyed are Palestinians and Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin. The situation of house demolition inside Israel differs greatly, both in law and in practice, from that prevailing in the Occupied Territories, and it is in the latter that Israel has carried out the most extensive destruction of homes and property in recent years. However, there are also similarities between the two situations, notably the main underlying causes for the demolition of homes for lack of building permits, a phenomenon which exists both in the Arab sector in Israel and in parts of the Occupied Territories.

The expropriation/confiscation of large areas of Palestinian land has significantly diminished the reserves of available land on which Palestinians and Israeli Arabs can build to accommodate the natural growth of their communities. Planning and building regulations in these areas further restrict the amount of privately owned land on which Israeli Arabs and Palestinians can build.

In the Occupied Territories Palestinians are barred from leasing or building on land which has been declared state land because state land is not for leasing or building on by "alien persons", and the whole of the local Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories are defined as aliens.⁴³ Palestinians have not been allowed to build on, or make other use of, most of the land, which has been available for housing, farming and commercial use by Jewish settlers, whose presence in the Occupied Territories is in violation of international law.

In Israel, since the establishment of the state more than 700 Jewish towns and villages have been established but not a single Arab one. Furthermore dozens of Arab villages which existed prior to the establishment of the state were subsequently re-classified as non-residential and remain unrecognized and under the threat of demolition.

Some 93% of the land in Israel is state land, but some of it is administered through the Jewish National Fund, the Jewish Agency or other bodies which do not lease land to non Jews and do not accept them in the housing projects/communities they establish and other housing projects on state land have been developed specifically for new Jewish immigrants. Other measures which restrict access of Israeli Arabs to land and housing include housing subsidies, which are only available to Israelis who have completed Israeli army service. This excludes Israeli Arabs, who are not conscripted into the Israeli army.

The building plans for many Arab towns and villages in Israel have not been completed, thus restricting or blocking the issuing of building permits, whereas building plans were promptly drawn up for new Jewish towns or villages. Many Arab villages in Israel do not have their own local councils – while smaller Jewish villages do – and depend on Jewish town/village councils, where they have no representation. Privately owned land in Arab villages has been zoned as agricultural and/or placed under the jurisdiction of adjacent Jewish village councils, making it difficult or impossible for Arabs to obtain building permits.


2. Planning and building policies

At the root of the problem of demolition of unlicensed houses in the Arab sector in Israel and in parts of the Occupied Territories lie Israel’s land and planning policies and the manner in which they are enforced. These policies have been characterized by discrimination against Israeli Arabs and Palestinians both in the use of state land, including land previously expropriated from Palestinians, and in the manner in which plans are drawn up for the use of privately owned land, as well as in the enforcement of planning and building regulations. Concerns about discriminatory regulations and practices have long been recognized, including by the Or Commission of Inquiry in its report published in 2002.⁴⁴

------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the Or Commission report (September 2003)

36. In the first 50 years of the state’s existence the Arab population has grown seven-fold and at the same time the amount of land allocated for housing construction has remained almost unchanged. Thus the population density in the Arab sector grew considerably and the lack of available land harmed young couples looking for housing. Public buildi