05 March 06

 
   B'Tselem's new video: Lethal Ambiguity  


In a new video, B'Tselem presents testimonies of soldiers relating to the Open-Fire Regulations [OFR]. The testimonies show that soldiers receive ambiguous orders on when they are to use their weapons, which has led in many cases to unnecessary gunfire and the loss of life.

In one segment, a soldier speaks about the army's policy in Hebron: "The Palestinians would open fire… In response, the army would take a controlling position and set up machineguns. Our job as machine-gunners was to respond… Machineguns are not precise weapons. You fire the first volley, see what it hits, and based on that adjust the aim… There were cases in which the army opened machinegun-fire and hit the roof of a hospital with a grenade…

"All these orders are grounded on a simple assumption: it is unacceptable that Palestinians will fire and we, the army, remain silent… [The soldiers] would take revenge. Go to Abu Sneneih or Harat a-Sheikh and shoot from real close… and when that didn't help, fire at property as a deterrent."

In the past, the OFR in the Occupied Territories only covered law enforcement. However, with the outbreak of the Intifada, in late September 2000, Israel instituted significant changes in the regulations and made them more ambiguous. The army no longer gave soldiers a printed copy of the regulations, and they greatly expanded the kinds of situations in which soldiers were allowed to use their weapons. According to B'Tselem's figures, since the beginning of the Intifada, Israeli security forces have killed at least 1,806 Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities at the time they were killed. The vagueness of the orders given to soldiers on when to open fire is one of the principal causes for the high number of casualties.

 
From B'Tselem’s video, Lethal Ambiguity
From B'Tselem's video, Lethal Ambiguity

   
   
 
   IDF changes procedure for investigating the killing of Palestinians  


IDF Chief-of-Staff Dan Halutz recently changed the procedure for internal investigations of cases in which soldiers kill Palestinian civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities. After the Intifada began, in late September 2000, the Judge Advocate General's Office decided to halt the procedure that had previously been in effect, whereby a Military Police investigation was opened automatically in every case in which a Palestinian not taking part in the hostilities was killed. Since then, Military Police investigations have been opened in exceptional cases only. In light of the minuscule number of investigations in proportion to the number of deaths that have been opened, B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the army to reinstitute the policy it had implemented prior to the second Intifada. In a statement to the High Court, the State Attorney's Office related to the change in procedure regarding internal investigations recently announced by the Chief-of-Staff as a "significant improvement" in the existing situation, which justified rejection of the petition filed by B'Tselem and ACRI.

According to the new procedure, the Judge Advocate General's Office will be provided a detailed report, within 48 hours, of each incident in which a civilian not taking part in the hostilities is killed. Based on the information contained in the report, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) will decide whether to open an investigation.

Despite the improvement, the new procedure does not rectify the principal flaws in the process of deciding whether to open an investigation. The responsibility for collecting the information provided to the JAG, which forms the basis for determining whether to open a Military Police investigation, is left in the hands of the military forces that were involved in causing the death. This situation creates a clear conflict of interest, in that the persons charged with reporting the primary facts in the case may bear criminal liability for the acts described in the report. Furthermore, the new procedure does not solve the currently existing problem in which the decision to open a Military Police investigation is made long after the incident occurred, and the evidence at the scene has disappeared. The request made by B'Tselem and ACRI that the Military Police immediately document the scene of the incident in which a Palestinian civilian was killed, so that a future investigation, if ordered, would be effective, was rejected by the State Attorney's Office.

Most importantly, the new procedure leaves intact the general practice of not investigating cases of the killing of civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities. This situation transmits a grave message to the soldiers of contempt for the most basic human right, the right to life.

 
Enforcing curfew in the a-Daheishe refugee camp. Photo: Reuters
Enforcing curfew in the a-Daheishe refugee camp. Photo: Reuters

   
   
   
 
   Suspicion: areas near Gaza fence classified as "killing zones"  


Since the disengagement from the Gaza Strip was completed in September 2005, IDF soldiers have killed nine unarmed Palestinian civilians in the area of the Gaza perimeter fence. Five minors, one an eight-month old child, were among the nine persons killed. According to B'Tselem's recent research, the army made no attempt to warn the Palestinians to move further away from the fence, or to give them a chance to surrender.

There has been talk in the media of "killing zones." The claim is that there are areas in which the soldiers are ordered to open fire at any person who enters, regardless of the circumstances. IDF officials have denied that any such order has been given. However, the nine cases in which Palestinians have been killed raise the suspicion that broad stretches of land near the Gaza perimeter fence have indeed been classified as "killing zones."

B'Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate General and demanded that a Military Police investigation be conducted regarding these nine cases.

 
The Gaza perimeter fence. Photo: Zero2000
The Gaza perimeter fence. Photo: Zero2000

   
 
   Israel has committed de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley  


In the eastern strip of the West Bank, which includes the Jordan Valley and the northern section of the Dead Sea, Israel has instituted a regime of harsh restrictions on the movement of Palestinians. According to B'Tselem's research, the restrictions apply only to Palestinians: the army generally prohibits the entry of Palestinians to this area, and only Palestinians listed as residents of a village in the area are allowed entry.

Severing the eastern strip from the rest of the West Bank severely violates the human rights of many Palestinians. This policy has been implemented without any government decision on the matter, and without informing the public.

The regime that Israel has instituted in the eastern strip gives the impression that the motive underlying Israel's policy is not based on security-military needs, but is political: the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley and the northern section of the Dead Sea. This annexation, similar to the de facto annexation of broad areas situated west of the Separation Barrier, constitutes a flagrant breach of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

 
Hamra Checkpoint, Jordan Valley. Photo: B'Tselem
Hamra Checkpoint, Jordan Valley. Photo: B'Tselem

   
   
 
   Soldiers beat two Palestinians at checkpoint  


On the night of 9 February 2005, 'Alaa al-Ma'iwi and 'Alaa Hilkawi, residents of the al-Fawwar refugee camp, which is situated south of Hebron, were driving home. At the al-Fawwar checkpoint, soldiers claimed that the two had weapons and demanded that they hand them over. The soldiers beat them severely and threatened them.

In his testimony to B'Tselem, al-Ma'iwi said: "The soldier pressed the barrel of his M-16 rifle to my face and pushed me, striking me under my right eye. It hurt a lot and I bent over, and rubbed the wound to soothe the pain. The other soldier told me to give him my ID card… ‘Alaa told him that he had the keys, and the soldier told ‘Alaa to throw them on the ground. I picked up the keys and went to get the car. ‘Alaa remained with the soldiers. After I had gone about ten meters, I heard ‘Alaa cry out in pain.

Later in his testimony, he stated: "He pressed the barrel of his rifle against my penis and cocked the trigger. I was certain he was about to shoot. I jumped back, raised my hands, and swore again that I didn't have any weapons. He punched me hard under my eye. I cried out in pain and said that I wanted to see the commander. The soldier shouted at me to shut up."

The soldiers released the two Palestinians two and a half hours later, and they made their way home on foot. B'Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate general and demanded a Military Police investigation of the incident.

 
'Alaa al-Ma'iwi (on the right) and 'Alaa Hilkawi. Photo: B'Tselem
'Alaa al-Ma'iwi (on the right) and 'Alaa Hilkawi. Photo: B'Tselem

   
   
I
I
I
I