Newly released today, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section (DCI) has produced this short film about Israel’s ill-treatment of Palestinian children during their arrest, transfer and detention. Alone: Palestinian Children in the Israeli Military Detention System contains images of children who found the courage to talk about the appalling treatment.

For example, 14-year-old Ala tells how he was handcuffed and blindfolded during his arrest. “They [Israeli soldiers] put me in the jeep and transferred me to Etzion interrogation center. The interrogator told me to say goodbye to my friend Muhannad, because he was going to throw me from the third floor. No one was there to protect me. No one was with me. I was alone.”
Since 2000, around 7,500 Palestinian children from the occupied Palestinian territories have been detained, interrogated and imprisoned within the Israeli military law system. The film also presents basic information and the impact of their arrest and detention on families.

When 13-year-old Muhannad talks about his arrest, the look in his eyes is heart breaking. His father saw how Israeli soldiers treated his son, “It was as if they were coming to arrest a combatant or an armed fugitive.”

Interrogations are set up to terrorize
In 75 precent of the cases documented by DCI, child detainees suffered some form of physical violence during arrest, transfer and interrogation.

The suffering starts the moment a child is arrested and continues throughout interrogation and court sessions, explains DCI lawyer Iyad Misk. Children are often physically, verbally abused, insulted by soldiers during transport in the jeep. The abuse continues during the interrogation.

Children are also often enticed with offers of immediate release in exchange for confessions. However, what normally happens is just the opposite. Once a child confesses, he is sent to prison and his file is sent to the court. Interrogations are set up to terrorize, says Misk.

Nader Abu Amsha of the East Jerusalem YMCA Rehabilitation Programme says that the purpose of the raids, arrests and interrogations is more than getting information. It is to break the will and spirit of a generation. The purpose is to break the children and make them live in fear and confusion so they become an inactive, unproductive generation.

DCI’s latest film is an excellent tool to inform a wide audience about the ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system. The film can watched on YouTube, or copies of the DVD can be ordered from DCI-Palestine.

First published in the Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Israeli forces were caught on camera when they blocked Palestinian roads in the south Hebron hills area of the occupied West Bank using Caterpillar armored bulldozers.

Caterpillar is the subject of an international divestment campaign because its equipment has been routinely used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes and other illegal activities.

Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist, was crushed to death in Gaza on 16 March 2003 by an armored Caterpillar D9-3 bulldozer as she sought to protect a Palestinian family home from destruction.

The videographer wrote to me that most of the video was filmed on 21 June on Road 317 near Bani Naim and Zif. The last part was filmed on 21 August near Shaab al-Butum. 

The video shows Israeli occupation forces using bulldozer to move large stones to block lanes coming from the Palestinian villages onto the main highway, effectively isolating them. The Caterpillar logo is visible on the bulldozers.

An Israeli court recently rejected an appeal against a military order to demolish eight Palestinian villages in the south Hebron hills so that the Israeli army could seize their land as a firing range. Such military use of Palestinian land has historically been a prelude to settlement.

Caterpillar logo on armored bulldozer (Detail from video)

Systematic blocking of movement and access
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory reported last year in a fact sheet on movement and access in the West Bank:

• 522 roadblocks and checkpoints obstruct Palestinian movement in the West Bank, compared to 503 in July 2010.
• So far in 2011, an additional 495 ad-hoc ‘flying’ checkpoints obstructed movement around the West Bank each month (on average), compared to 351 in the past two years.
• 200,000 people from 70 villages are forced to use detours between two to five times longer than the direct route to their closest city due to movement restrictions.
• 122 closure obstacles shut off the Old City of Hebron from the rest of the city.

Israeli roadblocks in the occupied Palestinian territory are an obstacle for Palestinians to enjoy their basic rights, for example the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence, the right to an adequate standard of living, adequate housing and access to education and healthcare.

The role of Caterpillar machines in Israel’s violations of the basic rights of the Palestinians is yet another reason for socially responsible investors to divest from the company.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Veolia operates Tovlan Landfill located in the occupied Jordan Valley, January 2011 (Photographed by Who Profits)

The French corporation Veolia says it has sold the Tovlan garbage dump in the Jordan Valley to the nearby Israeli settlement of Masua. But the company is still involved in the dump as a supervisor and consultant. On its official website, Veolia Australia gives some details of the sale in a comment to the blog Illegal Dumping of Waste:

Veolia / TMM (a local subsidiary of Veolia Environmental Services) sold to Masua Village its entire rights in the Tovlan landfill on June 26, 2011. As a consequence, we are no longer the registered owner of the site. In order to comply with applicable laws as well as the sale agreement, TMM will act as an active supervisor and consultant for a transitory period to ensure the fulfillment of environmental protection standards and applicable law. These services will be provided until Masuaa is capable of independently undertaking all such obligations in full itself. At the end of this transitory period, TMM will be released from any obligations regarding the landfill operation and will no longer have any control whatsoever over the operation of the site.

The Tovlan landfill serves mainly the needs of the Israeli population in Israel and in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Moreover, three Veolia subsidiaries in Israel hold permits to transfer waste from Israel to the Tovlan landfill – including TMM – according to the occupation watchdog, Who Profits.

International law prohibits Israel from using occupied land for the sole benefit of its own civilian population. In Resolution 63/201 of 28 January 2009, the UN General Assembly called on Israel to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials on occupied Palestinian land.

Veolia’s business deal with illegal Israeli settlement

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. Numerous UN resolutions and the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Israel’s wall in the West Bank have confirmed that settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The Israeli settlement of Masua was founded two years after the June 1967 War in which Israeli military forces occupied all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan and Egyptian Sinai, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.  Some 145 settlers live in Masua.

By selling off the Tovlan landfill to Masua, Veolia has entered into a business deal with an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

Veolia staff in Israel confirm the company’s involvement in Tovlan landfill

To get a full understanding of the connection between Veolia and Tovlan, Who Profits — a project of the Coalition of Women for Peace in Tel Aviv — contacted Veolia’s offices in Israel. Veolia staff were willing to provide some information.

Veolia Recycling Services secretary Aviva Pe’er, confirmed twice that the company still operates the site at Tovlan, in a telephone conversation on 22 July. In response to the request for a direct phone number at Tovlan landfill, Pe’er referred to a site manager there. The manager said that “Veolia supplies the operation, but the site belongs to Moshav Masua [Masua settlement].” The manager clarified that the company is responsible for the waste disposal in the site and that no date is foreseen in the near future in which its license from the Ministry of Environment will expire.

Activists of the Derail Veolia campaign should be aware that Veolia’s sale of the Tovlan landfill does not bring an end to the company’s involvement in that dump. Veolia continues not only to operate the landfill, but is also teaching illegal settlers how to do so.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Caterpillar machine involved in construction of Israeli A1 railway tunnel 3A in the occupied West Bank. (Photo retrieved from Israel Railways’ Facebook page on 29 July 2012)

Who Profits?, a project of the Tel Aviv-based Coalition of Women for Peace, found photo’s of the A1 high-speed train project that will connect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on the Israel Railways’ Facebook page. The photo’s – published on 4 June 2012 – document the use of Caterpillar equipment in the construction of tunnel 3A which lies within the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Israel’s A1 high-speed train crosses the Green Line – the 1949 Armistice Line (also known as the “1967 line” or “Green Line”) that is internationally recognized as the boundary between Israel and the occupied West Bank. When completed, the A1 high-speed train will exclusively serve Israeli commuters between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Who Profits published a report on the A1 fast train in October 2010.

Overview of the construction site of A1 high speed railway tunnel 3A near Palestinian villages of Beit Iksa and Beit Surik. (Photo retrieved from Israel Railway Facebook page on 29 July 2012)

Israel builds railway tunnel 3A on occupied land

The railway will run for six kilometers on occupied Palestinian land, violating international law in several ways. For example, Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids Israel as occupying power from destroying Palestinian property. The construction of the A1 railway also constitutes a significant alteration of the infrastructure of the West Bank contrary to the Hague Regulations of 1907, Section 3. Israel’s entire settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been declared illegal and illegitimate countless times by governments all over the world and by the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice  although no action has ever been taken to enforce those decisions.

Tunnel 3A is part of the section of the railway which cuts into the West Bank near the Palestinian villages of Bet Surik and Bet Iksa, close to Jerusalem. The section consists of a tunnel, a bridge over Cedar Valley and a second tunnel. The map on page 11 in Who Profits’ report on the A1, clarifies the situation. Tunnel 3A is situated on occupied land.

In the original plan the route would pass the Israeli town of Mevaseret Zion. However, the Israeli residents objected to the plan, demanding that the route be moved at least 500 meters further north. Following protests by Israeli citizens, the railway route was moved to 250–300 metres north of the 1949 Armistice Line, cutting into the lands of the vilages Beit Surik and Beit Iksa.

Caterpillar machine assisting in construction of Israeli A1 railway tunnel 3A near Palestinian villages of Beit Iksa and Beit Surik. (Photo retrieved from Israel Railways’ Facebook page on 29 July 2012)

Caterpillar machinery used for illegal construction of railway tunnel on occupied Palestinian land

Recently, Maureen Clare Murphy reported in her blog Milestone victory: pension fund giant TIAA-CREF divests $72 million from Caterpillar that US pension fund giant TIAA-CREF had removed Caterpillar, Inc. from its Social Choice Funds portfolio. The Quaker Friends Fiduciary Corporation decided to divest $900,000 worth of shares in Caterpillar one month earlier.

The role of Caterpillar machines in the illegal construction of A1 railway tunnel 3A in the occupied West Bank is yet another reason for socially responsible investors to divest from the company.

First published at The Elctronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Vast areas near the occupied Dead Sea are closed off by Israel as “military area” (Who Profits, October 2010)

WhoProfits, a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, has documented corporate plunder of natural resources in the occupied West Bank. For example, Israeli cosmetics firm Ahava’s extraction of mud from the occupied Palestinian Dead Sea and HeidelbergCement and Cemex’s role in operating quarries in the West Bank. HeidelbergCement and Cemex headquarters are based in Germany and Mexico, respectively.

Last September, the Open Society Institute published the updated “Corporate War Crimes, Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources,” a manual written by law professor James G. Stewart. The manual is useful for lawyers, rights organizations and Palestine solidarity activists to explore options to hold business representatives to account for their role in the plunder of Palestinian natural resources.

Natural resources in the West Bank are owned by the Palestinian people

Sovereignty over natural resources and the right to self-determination are closely tied. The Palestinian people unquestionably have the right to self-determination. The League of Nations already affirmed this right in 1917 and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did so in its 2004 authoritative legal opinion on Israel’s wall built on occupied Palestinian land. The ICJ also found that “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

The UN General Assembly declared that sovereignty over natural wealth and resources is a “basic constituent of the right to self-determination” by adopting Resolution 1803 in 1962. The UN Security Council affirmed peoples’ rights to natural resources on several occasions.

By granting companies permits to extract natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories for the benefit of Israel and the companies, Israel disregards its international obligations. Moreover, Ahava, HeidelbergCement and Cemex have conscientiously requested Israel army’s civic administration – the occupying power – for permission, instead of the owners – the Palestinians.

Ahava, HeidelbergCement and Cemex extract Palestinian natural resources

WhoProfits has documented the extraction of Palestinian natural resources by Israeli cosmetics firm Ahava and multinational building materials industries HeidelbergCement and Cemex.

Ahava operates an excavation site on the shores of the occupied Dead Sea to extract mud for its products. In a letter of 26 April 2011, the Israeli army’s civic administration informedWho Profits that it had granted Ahava a license for operating a site for collecting mud from the occupied area of the Dead Sea for commercial uses. Ahava received the license in 2004 and has been operating the excavation site ever since. The company is selling its products containing stolen Dead Sea minerals in Ahava flagship stores in Germany, Hungary, the Philippines, Korea and Singapore.

The multinational building materials industries HeidelbergCement and Cemex from Germany and Mexico, respectively, are involved in the operation of quarries in the occupied West Bank.

HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary Hanson Israel operates the Nahal Raba quarry in the West Bank near the green line — Israel’s internationally-recognized boundary with the occupied West Bank — and Kfar Qasim, a Palestinian village in Israel.

Cemex owns fifty percent of Yatir Quarry through its subsidiary ReadyMix Industries. The Yatir quarry lies next to the Israeli settlement of Teneh Omarim in the south Hebron hills of the West Bank.

In May 2011, The Electronic Intifada documented the transportation of construction material from Yatir and Nahal Raba quarries in the occupied West Bank into Israel.

International law prohibits plundering of natural resources

In his manual, Stewart writes that the laws of war protect property against pillage during armed conflict. In the Hague Regulations of 1907, two provisions stipulate that “the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited,” and that “pillage is formally forbidden.” According to an interpretation by Julius Stone, “wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value, whether by excessive cutting or mining or other abusive exploitation” by the occupying state in the territory it occupies is “contrary to the rules of good husbandry,” Stone is recognized internationally for his expertise in international law. In addition, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 reaffirmed that “pillage is prohibited.” 

ICJ sets important precedent in case of illegal occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa

The South African apartheid regime illegally occupied Namibia for decades. The ICJ set an important precedent in its 1971 Advisory Opinion on South Africa’s presence in Namibia. Stewart refers to the Namibia Opinion in his manual by quoting the Court’s conclusion, “[O]fficial acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.” Therefore, attempts by the apartheid South African regime to grant title in Namibian natural resources were “illegal and invalid,” because the expropriation of natural resources is not analogous with registering births, deaths, and marriages.

Moreover, one of the judges on the case explicitly confirmed this interpretation in a separate opinion by adding that “other States should not regard as valid any acts and transactions of the authorities in Namibia relating to public property, concessions, etc.” The UN Security Council and United Nations Council for Namibia, later confirmed this view.

Palestinian natural resources exploited for the benefit of Israel and companies

Stewart presents in his manual also the argument that non-renewable resources can be exploited by an occupying army, provided that the money from these sales is spent exclusively on the humanitarian needs of the local population.

However, this is certainly not the case with Heidelberg Cement and Cemex. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Israel’s state comptroller revealed in its annual report for 2005, that although any royalties from the quarries should be used for the benefit of the Palestinian population, they were paid into the Israeli state treasury instead (“Digging up the dirt,” 3 September 2010).

In the case of Ahava, part of the profit will directly flow into the settlements of Mitzpeh Shalem and Kalia. The kibbutzes in these illegal settlements in the West Bank own 37% and 7,5% of Ahava, respectively.

Israel accelerates exploitation of Palestinian quarries after it occupied the West Bank

Stepping up the extraction of natural resources in war zones or conflict areas is a characteristic of the war crime of pillage. Until the early 1970s only two Palestinian quarries had existed in the area, according to Haaretz. The Israeli daily reports that Israel’s stone and gravel quarries in the West Bank came into operation in the early 1970s.

Israel’s plundering drew the attention of the UN General Assembly in 2010, expressing “its concern at the exploitation by Israel of the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” and called upon Israel “not to exploit, cause loss or depletion of or endanger the natural resources in the OPT.” It also recognized the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, loss or depletion of, or danger to, their natural resources.

Business representatives can be held to account for plundering

Criminal courts are capable of prosecuting business representatives for pillage perpetrated during the course of commercial activities in a conflict zone, writes Stewart in his manual. After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that “[i]nternational law… binds every citizen just as does ordinary municipal law.” The Tribunal concluded that crimes against international law “are committed by men, not by abstract entities,” to ensure that the corporate structure did not shield business representatives from individual criminal liability. It contributed to broad consensus that the laws of war bind individuals.

Stewart argues that perpetrating, aiding, and abetting or instigating pillage of natural resources renders individual business representatives guilty of a war crime. He mentions that for example Germany, home country of HeidelbergCement, the 2002 Code of Crimes against International Law states that “Whoever in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character pillages or, unless this is imperatively demanded by the necessities of the armed conflict, otherwise extensively destroys, appropriates or seizes property of the adverse party contrary to international law, such property being in the power of the perpetrator’s party, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to ten years.”

The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has exposed the complicity of a number of multinational corporations in the Israeli occupation, alerting investors to the incompatibility with corporate social responsibility. In addition, Ahava has been targeted by the movement with protests and a boycott and protests.

The manual “Corporate War Crimes, Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources” provides an additional tool. It can be used by lawyers, rights organizations and Palestine solidarity activists to explore options to hold business representatives to account for their role in the plunder of Palestinian natural resources.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Protest against introduction of new JCB toys range by Hamleys, because of JCB’s complicity in violations of Palestinian human rights, 1 June 2012 (Chris Browne)

Last Friday, parents with toddlers demonstrated in front of Hamleys London flagship toy store to protest the use of JCB equipment in Israel’s crimes against Palestinian children and communities — particularly the ongoing and imminent destruction of dozens of Palestinian family homes in occupied Jerusalem.

The world largest toy store is preparing to sell a new range of JCB branded toys for British firm JCB. People supported the protest by phoning JCB to demand that the company end their complicity in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. The actions took place to launch the Stop the Bulldozers-campaign of British charity War on Want, aiming to end JCB’s complicity in the violations of Palestinian human rights.  War on Want writes in a 1 June press release:

The protestors cite JCB bulldozers’ use to demolish the only Palestinian children’s playground in the district of Silwan in East Jerusalem and JCB equipment’s part in the construction of the illegal Apartheid Wall, Israeli settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes.

The charity War on Want wrote to JCB after the playground was demolished. But JCB has failed to respond to its request for the company to investigate the use of JCB equipment in Silwan and ensure that it will not be used in illegal demolitions.

Kat Hobbs, War on Want’s Save Silwan campaigner, said: “JCB is trying to corner the kids’ market with the My First JCB range of toys and clothes. Yet for Palestinian children, their first JCB experience is when a digger is destroying their home and playground. JCB needs to stop its bulldozers being used as weapons against the Palestinian people.”

British foreign office minister Alistair Burt has confirmed the government knew about claims that equipment manufactured by a UK construction equipment company “may have been used in demolitions”. But, despite branding the demolition of the playground “contrary to Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law” the Foreign Office has taken no further action.

Over 1,000 Palestinians in Silwan face the threat of their homes being destroyed to make way for a theme park, in the largest mass demolition since 1967, the year Israel took control of east Jerusalem.

War on Want uncovers JCB’s complicity in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians in new report

Meanwhile, War on Want launched its Stop the Bulldozers report which reveals JCB’s complicity in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. The report mentions the use of JCB equipment in illegal settlement construction and in the demolition of Palestinian homes, mosques and olive trees in occupied Palestinian territories including occupied East Jerusalem.

In addition, the report mentions the demolition of the only children’s playground in Silwan. The playground and sports field at the Madaa creative centre was used as a football pitch and recreation ground by local children. JCB’s machines were filmed and photographed carrying out the demolition without warning and without a demolition order.

Citing Who Profits, a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace, War on Want writes:

Company trucks are used in the construction of settlement and checkpoints. For instance, they were used in the construction of homes in the West Bank settlements of Alfei Menashe and Zufin, at the checkpoint in Qalandia and at the checkpoint near Ofer prison, and in the Ariel West settlement industrial zone. Their excavators and other equipment are used in the construction of the A1 train line between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, which is being constructed on Palestinian land in Latrun.

Report reveals JCB sale of armored bulldozer to Israeli army

JCB has recently sold the HMEE military equipment through the American Foreign Military Sales program to the Central Command unit of the Israeli army for use by their paratroopers’ division. JCB has worked with the Israeli army to modify the vehicles to their specific requirements. The machines are already in use by the Israeli army’s Combat Engineering Corps. The Central Command unit of the Israeli army has responsibility for much of the occupied West Bank. The Israeli army writes on its website that “According to the JCB Company, the HMEE offers its crew superior defense and is resistant to bullets and explosions.”

JCB Defence Products Limited is listed as a separate UK company, according to War on Want’s report. JCB developed the High Mobility Engineer Excavator (HMEE) in the UK for the US army. It is now manufactured in JCB’s factory in Savannah, Georgia, USA. The HMEE was used in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stop the bulldozers, act now

The report concludes with the following suggestions for action:

It is unacceptable that a British company like JCB should profit from sales of military and demolition equipment to Israel in the sure knowledge that this equipment may well be used to violate human rights. Despite ongoing abuses, the UK has done nothing to bring Israel to account for its actions, or to stop British companies from supporting the occupation of Palestine with goods and services. War on Want is calling on JCB to:

• Investigate the use of JCB equipment in human rights violations in Palestine
• Suspend all military sales to Israel
• Take steps to ensure that JCB equipment is not used to commit human rights violations in Palestine

The charity is calling for people to contact JCB at the address given below to raise concerns over its activities in Palestine.

Email JCB: jcbinfo@yesresponse.co.uk

Write to JCB: J C Bamford Excavators Limited, Rocester, Staffordshire ST14 5JP

Telephone JCB: +44 (0)800 581761 or +44(0) 20 7491 2576

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Simon Natas

Simon Natas is a London-based lawyer specializing in criminal defense law and human rights. Natas is involved with the organization Jews for Justice for Palestinians and has defended a number of Palestine solidarity activists, including four who blockaded the cosmetics retailer Ahava’s London flagship store in Covent Garden on two occasions in 2009. Ahava closed the store last September; this decision followed a long series of protests outside the store, which led its landlord to refuse to renew the lease.

The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof interviewed Natas about the protesters’ case and the role of G4S Israel, a subsidiary of British-Danish security firm G4S, in Israel’s occupation and repression of Palestinians. Meanwhile, G4S won a massive security contract with the London 2012 Summer Olympics worth £200 million ($312.7 million) (“100,000 eye Olympics security jobs with G4S,” The Independent, 15 May 2012).

Adri Nieuwhof: Can you talk about the case against the activists who blockaded Ahava’s shop in London?

Simon Natas: In 2009, I defended a number of activists who carried out a peaceful blockade of the Ahava shop in Covent Garden. That case was discontinued. There were further blockades in 2010 which resulted in a trial that summer. That trial — again — collapsed and all the defendants were acquitted. Then there were further blockades which resulted in a trial in which there were convictions. Two of those we successfully appealed last month in the High Court. The two remaining convictions were upheld. We are now seeking to appeal in the Supreme Court.

AN: What was your main line of defense in the case against the Ahava protestors?

SN: My clients were charged with an offense known as aggravated trespass. It makes it a criminal offense to trespass on somebody else’s property and in doing so, obstruct lawful activity. So it is part of the prosecution’s case that the activity that you obstruct or intend to obstruct is lawful. You cannot be guilty of the offense if you are obstructing activity that is itself criminal.

Now, the defense that my clients relied on was that the activity they had obstructed was unlawful on a number of different grounds. All arose from the fact that the Ahava products were manufactured in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank called Mitzpe Shalem.

We relied on a number of different allegations of illegality, one of them was the labeling of those products. They were labeled “manufactured by Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd, Dead Sea, Israel.”

It is quite clear that anybody reading that label would assume that the products were manufactured in Israel, but of course they are not. They are manufactured in the West Bank, which is not recognized by the international community as being part of Israel. Throughout Europe we have laws designed to ensure that consumers are not misled by people who market products.

In the UK, they have been incorporated into our domestic law and are known as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations of 2008. They make it a criminal offense to engage in a misleading omission or misleading action that would cause consumers to buy goods that they might not otherwise buy had they known the true facts or had they not been misled as to the true facts. My clients argued that the labeling of Ahava’s products were clearly misleading, because there are many people out there who would not want to buy products from an illegal Israeli settlement.

There were other allegations of illegality as well. One of the things that my clients argued was that it was potentially illegal to market any product which was the proceeds of a crime in international law. They argued that the establishment of an illegal settlement and a factory on that settlement breached international law and that all the goods that were produced on it were the proceeds of crime. It followed that anyone dealing in those goods was also dealing in the proceeds of crime.

The district judge accepted that my clients had adduced a considerable body of evidence to back up their argument and also that the argument had considerable force, but he did not feel able to rule that Ahava’s trade was unlawful in the context of proceedings in which the company was not itself a party.

AN: G4S is involved in the provision of services to Israeli checkpoints, the police and Israeli prisons. How do you assess G4S’s role in Israel’s violations of international law?

SN: The first thing we need to establish is that we are talking here about G4S Israel, or Hashmira. The shares in this company are held overwhelmingly [91%] by the parent company, which is the British Danish company G4S. But it is G4S Israel operating the contracts in Israel and the occupied territories [the West Bank and Gaza Strip].

The background to this is that in 2002, G4S took over the Israeli security company Hashmira. That company had been engaged in activities in the occupied territories that included providing security services, security guards for settlements in the West Bank and also for businesses and prisons in the West Bank and prisons for Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Over the years, the parent company G4S has faced considerable criticism from NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], particularly in Denmark, for the activities of its Israeli subsidiary. G4S says it has given up a number of contracts. They say they no longer provide security contracts for settlements themselves. They do still provide services to some businesses and also a police station in the West Bank.

One of the most problematic services they operate is the provision of technical equipment and maintenance for checkpoints. Those include checkpoints in the wall, known by many as the apartheid wall, although the Israeli authorities describe it as the separation barrier.

The wall cuts deep into Palestinian territory, encompassing most of the area of major Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, and cuts through Palestinian towns such as Qalqiliya. It prevents Palestinians from getting to their land and blocks Palestinian access to East Jerusalem.

The building of this wall was determined by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 2004 as being illegal, not just because the UN Security Council had said Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal and determined that Israel should leave the occupied Palestinian territory but also because through the construction of this wall Israel was pursuing conduct which they found in breach of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This provision makes it a crime for an occupying country to transfer its own population into the territory that it occupies. So the transfer of Israeli civilians into the settlements in the West Bank is a grave breach of the convention.

The court said that the wall had become an integral part of this crime because it was part of a policy of de facto annexation. What they saw was that Israel had created settlements in the West Bank and it had then constructed this wall which was designed ultimately to enable Israel to annex that territory. The court also observed that the wall had a serious impact on Palestinians’ right to access their land, water, education, health care. So it has a significant humanitarian impact as well.

The court talked not only about the wall, but about the wall and its associated regime. It considered that “the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a fait accompli on the ground that could well become permanent in which case and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.”

When one talks about the associated regime of the wall, one certainly talks about the checkpoints, because the wall cannot operate without checkpoints. The checkpoints enable Israeli settlers and indeed Israeli citizens who are not necessarily settlers but may be visiting the settlements, to pass through that wall and access other parts of the West Bank, such as the Jordan Valley, which is subject to a considerable amount of economic exploitation by Israel. Much of the settlement produce which comes out from the [occupied West Bank] comes from the Jordan Valley.

So the checkpoints are necessary in order to allow Israelis access to the West Bank [and] to prevent Palestinians from passing the other way. If you are providing the technical facilities like the scanners and other equipment, and you also have a contract to look after them, to fix them when they go wrong, to ensure that they are working properly, then you are assisting in that process by ensuring that the checkpoints can effectively regulate the movement of people through the wall. That is one area in which G4S Israel may be assisting in something which the International Court of Justice has condemned as a breach of the Geneva conventions.

AN: And how do you assess G4S Israel’s involvement in prisons in Israel?

SN: One of the main areas of criticism from NGOs in Europe and far more significantly, from within Palestine, is the fact that G4S provides electronic security systems to prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held. These include both prisons and detention and interrogation centers.

It is well-established that Israel’s detention of Palestinian political prisoners breaches human rights norms routinely. Administrative detention has been much in the news as a result of the recent hunger strike, but it is a very longstanding issue. Criticism of G4S Israel has evolved around its involvement in providing security equipment to those prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held. Whether in doing that they are assisting in Israel’s breaches of international law is matter of argument, but it seems to me something that one would not easily be able to exclude.

As a result, it seems to me something G4S should not be doing. Clearly on moral grounds, but it may be legally problematic as well. G4S Israel is participant in the UN Global Compact which has ten principles for businesses. Principle one is that business should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights. Principle two is that they must not be complicit in human rights abuses.

Activists and members of NGOs which are concerned about what Western corporations are doing in other parts of the world can look at these legal principles and the norms that they attempt to establish and protect, and then one can look at what these companies are involving themselves in when they provide services to regimes which routinely breach human rights as Israel does in the occupied Palestinian territories.

AN: Do you think companies or its staff can be held accountable for breaches of international law?

SN: Companies themselves cannot be prosecuted in international courts. In domestic jurisdictions there are various crimes that corporations can commit, for example, corporate manslaughter or bribery. Not so for breaches of international law.

It is in theory possible for individuals who are responsible for the behavior of companies to be personally liable. There have been successful prosecutions of directors of companies. There was a well-known case in the Netherlands, the Van Anraat case, in which the director of a company was convicted of selling chemicals to the Saddam Hussein regime, knowing that they would be used to make mustard gas which then be used against civilians. He had no other involvement with the Saddam Hussein regime and no involvement in planning or organizing the attacks. Van Anraat was prosecuted on the basis that he was personally liable for the actions of his company. So it is possible to hold corporate officials responsible for the actions of a company, but every case will turn on its own facts, for example, who was responsible for the decisions and what their state of knowledge was.

AN: Palestine solidarity activists have campaigned to exclude the transportation giant Veolia from bidding for public contracts because of the company’s role in several Israeli projects in the occupied West Bank. They argue that this involvement can be qualified as grave professional misconduct. Do you think the same would apply for G4S?

SN: I think the same arguments made about Veolia can also be made about G4S Israel. I don’t know if the corporate structures of Veolia and G4S are similar, but I think the general point that is made about Veolia is that this is a company which operates in the occupied Palestinian territory through its involvement in building and operating the Jerusalem light railway.

There is a strong argument that the Jerusalem light railway breaches article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a similar criticism to that which can be made about G4S’s involvement in checkpoints for the wall. The Jerusalem light rail connects West Jerusalem with settlements in the [occupied West Bank] and appears designed to achieve the same goal that the International Court of Justice condemned in relation to the building of the wall, i.e. a policy which leads to the de facto annexation of territory in the West Bank and particularly territory around East Jerusalem. So in my opinion the same criticism can be made about G4S’s involvement in the wall. There is a clear analogy there.

First published at the Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Logo used in Veolia campaign by Dutch Palestine Committee

Pressure is growing on the Dutch regional administrative council of Haaglanden — whose major city is The Hague — to end its business with Veolia Transport because of the deep complicity of Veolia Environment with grave Israeli violations of international law. Veolia is involved in projects that strengthen Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank such as the Jerusalem Light Rail and the Tovlan landfill.

Earliers this month Dutch groups and the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq launched an effort to convince Haaglanden that Veolia should not be awarded the public transport contract.

This has now been joined by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) and the Tel Aviv-based Coalition of Women for Peace and its research project Who Profits.

Meanwhile, a majority of the Dutch Parliament called on Haaglanden to postpone the decision because of the preparation of a law to abandon tender procedures for public services in the major cities.

Palestinian civil society calls on The Hague to uphold international law by excluding Veolia
On 16 May, the BNC, the largest Palestinian civil society coalition, called upon Haaglanden regional administrative council to exclude Veolia Transport from participating in the tender for public transport in The Hague. The BNC wrote:

Veolia Environnement companies are centrally involved in the Jerusalem Light Rail, which while disguised as a municipal infrastructure project is designed to serve the approximately 200,000 illegal Jewish settlers who reside within and around occupied East Jerusalem, reinforcing the unlawful Israeli annexation of Jerusalem and facilitating plans for further colonial expansion. Veolia also operates waste collection, sewage treatment and bus services for illegal Israeli colonies in occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). Despite attempts to mislead the public, Veolia remains an active and willing accomplice to Israel’s systematic violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in the OPT.

Who Profits submits report on Veolia’s grave misconduct in Israel and Palestine?
In addition, the Tel Aviv-based Coalition of Women for Peace and its research project Who Profits wrote a letter to Haaglanden and its nine participating municipalities.

In light of the participation of Veolia in the tender, it is of utmost importance that you receive reliable information about the grave misconduct of Veolia in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Veolia Environment and its subsidiaries are involved in violations of international law and human rights and have a record of discriminatory practices in Israel and the OPT. Civil society organizations have been campaigning to encourage Veolia to cease from these practices. Nevertheless, the company continues its extensive involvement in the occupation of Palestinian Territories and its blatant disregard of ethical guidelines and international standards of social corporate responsibility.

Rights organizations remind Haaglanden of its legal obligations
Dutch rights organizations sent a fact file and a legal opinion to Haaglanden about Veolia’s activities in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. In the legal opinion, Dutch Attorney Phon van den Biesen reminds Haaglanden that Veolia has become complicit in Israel’s ongoing violations of international law through its involvement in Israeli projects in the occupied West Bank.

States are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance to such violations and to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law. The legal obligation also applies to state bodies, including municipalities and regional administrative councils. Van der Biesen argues that companies involved in Israel’s violations of international law should not be “rewarded” with public contracts of State bodies. Moreover, if a municipality decides to ignore its duties and award a contract to such a company, it will be vulnerable to be held legally liable by parties who suffered damages from these violations of international law.

However, a spokesperson from Haaglanden has claimed that there was no need to exclude Veolia from bidding, because the information presented to them is “one-sided.”

A Different Jewish Voice and legal expert criticize Haaglanden’s position
Jaap Hamburger, chairperson of A Different Jewish Voice who participate in action to end Veolia’s role in Haaglanden’s public transport, commented: “It is too easy to call it ‘one-sided’ information. The qualification doesn’t impress me as sincere or even professional, as it is a totally unspecified reproach first of all. Furthermore, the information is well researched, extremely factual and comprehensive and sources are referred to in footnotes throughout the article. Haaglanden has huge legal and financial responsibilities towards the public. It is neglecting what it is supposed to do as a civil service body, to at least examine the information assembled, to prevent contracting with a dubious partner and possible future damage to the public cause.”

Dr. Jeff Handmaker, Senior Lecturer in Law, Human Rights and Development at Erasmus University’s International Institute of Social Studies in The Hague commented: “It’s unfortunate of Mr. Veenman [spokesperson for Haaglanden] to dismiss the position of these respected organizations as a ‘one-sided position’. In fact, it is the very same position of the Hague Municipality, which is obliged to ensure respect for international law, including the laws of war. The Haaglanden regional government should be proud to host the ‘City of Peace and Justice’ [The Hague], that is home to the International Court of Justice. In 1907, this city hosted an historic conference that led to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It is well documented that the government and military of Israel have violated the Hague Convention in numerous respects, the gravest of which amount to war crimes, and that the Veolia Corporation has been directly complicit in these violations. It would be a shame if the City of Peace and Justice also became complicit in these violations and allowed Haaglanden to award the tender to Veolia. The Hague and Haaglanden should not only set a good example as a matter of principle; they are required to do so as a matter of law.”

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

On Palestinian Prisoners Day - 17 April 2012 - families protested the detention of their relatives in Israeli jails. (Photo: Anne Paq - ActiveStills)

British-Danish security firm G4S has been severely criticized for its operations in the occupied Palestinian territories and in prisons and detention centers in Israel, including those housing children and “administrative detainees” held without charge or trial.

On 17 April Palestinian organizations called for action against G4S for its role in Israeli prisons where Palestinian political prisoners from the occupied territories are held in contravention of international law.

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre in London published Michael Deas’s report on the call and invited G4S to respond. G4S submitted an update with old statements that does not address the criticism of the provision of services to prisons in Israel. Meanwhile, about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners bellow out their ill-treatment in a mass hunger strike.

Who Profits – a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace – has provided the information on G4S activities in Israel for the rejoinder below, including its extensive G4S report of March 2011.

Business as usual with private enterprises in settlements

Who Profits confirms that G4S provides security equipment and personnel to shops, supermarkets and businesses in the illegal settlements of Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim and Har Adar in the West Bank and in settlement neighborhoods of occupied East Jerusalem. Through its merger with Israeli security firm Aminut, G4S has incorporated security services to businesses in Barkan Industrial Zone in the West Bank. The continuation of Aminut’s business operations was announced on the website of G4S Israel.

Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the annexation of East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. Numerous UN resolutions and the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s wall in the West Bank have confirmed that settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — which states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Establishing businesses in the settlements entrenches the illegal settlements and may also lead to their growth. G4S assists this process by providing security services to the businesses concerned. Moreover, its action is discriminatory as services provided to the settlements cannot be used by Palestinians. G4S’s remark that “a number of contracts with private enterprises [in the West Bank] were not discriminatory or controversial” is therefore completely amiss.

Assistance to Israeli checkpoints

G4S Israel mentions its “homeland security activities” in a presentation of November 2011 (in Hebrew). The services include providing scanners to checkpoints in the “seam zone” and to Erez checkpoint in Gaza. The seam zone is located in the occupied territories between the green line — the 1949 armistice line between Israel as it was established in 1948 and the West Bank — and the wall. Who Profits ascertained that the checkpoints of Qalandia, Bethlehem and Irtah are included. The project has filed a request in the framework of the Israeli Freedom of Information Act to find out the full extent of G4S Israel’s services to checkpoints.

The system of checkpoints connected to the wall is designed to limit and control the movement of Palestinians within the West Bank. As such, the checkpoints serve Israeli settlement policies. The ICJ ruled that “the construction of the wall and its associated regime, by contributing to the demographic changes mentioned […] above, contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” The “associated regime” of the wall includes the checkpoints. One can argue that by providing and servicing security equipment for the checkpoints, G4S Israel is facilitating breaches of the Geneva Convention.

Close ties with the Israeli police

There are close ties between G4S Israel and the Israeli police. G4S Israel mentions on its website that it is the sole provider of electronic security systems to the Israeli police. In its November 2011 presentation, the company confirms that it still provides security services to the Israeli police department in the West Bank. In addition, G4S Israel mentions that it provides access control systems, metal detection gates, public announcement systems, burglary detection systems, fire detection systems and building inspection systems to police stations inside Israel.

The ties between G4S and the Israeli police became even closer when – last year – the Policity group won a 25-year contract to build, operate and maintain the new Israeli police training center in the Israeli town of Beit Shemesh. G4S owns 50 percent of Policity and will be the operating contractor of the project.

G4S must be aware of the instrumental role that the Israeli police play in implementing the country’s discriminatory and repressive laws, for example in the demolition of Palestinian property, the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their homes, the repression of protests against Israeli policies, the violent blocking of Palestinians from prayer in Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the shutting down of Palestinian media. By providing services to the Israeli police, G4S has sided with the force that tramples on basic human rights.

Assistance to the Israeli Prison Service

G4S Israel is deeply involved in Israeli prisons by providing security services to all jails run by the Israeli Prison Service, including the so-called “security prisons” inside Israel and in the West Bank. The Israeli authorities label Palestinian political prisoners as “security” prisoners and the prisons where they are held are therefore called “security prisons.”

For example, G4S installed the peripheral defense systems on the walls surrounding Ofer “security” prison in the occupied territories and it operates a central control room for the entire Ofer compound which houses a military court. G4S equipped Ketziot and Megiddo “security” prisons in Israel with their entire security systems. The G4S website clearly indicates that Ketziot prison holds “2,200 security prisoners.” The same source reveals that G4S provided the central control room for the entire security system in Megiddo “security” prison where over “1,200 security prisoners” are held.

In addition, G4S provides security services to Damon “security” prison, to the detention and interrogation facilities of Abu Kabir in Jaffa, to the “Russian Compound” in Jerusalem and to “Al-Jalameh” (Kishon) detention center in Haifa. Human rights organizations have collected evidence showing that Palestinian prisoners are regularly subjected to torture and ill-treatment in these facilities. Cell 36 of Al Jalame prison is one the cells where Palestinian children are locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks, wrote The Guardian in January.

Israel systematically denies Palestinian political prisoners their basic rights, including the right to a fair trial and to protection from arbitrary detention which are enshrined in international law. At present, Israel holds over 300 Palestinians – including 27 lawmakers – in arbitrary detention, which is also known as administrative detention.

In addition, Israel is not allowed to transfer Palestinian prisoners from the occupied territories to prisons in Israel, because Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits this. Thousands of Palestinian prisoners are thus unlawfully held in prisons in Israel. By delivering essential security services to prisons in Israel, G4S is assisting Israel in these violations of international law.

In its response to Deas’s report, G4S keeps silent about its services to the Israeli Prison Service. It is obvious that the company has no intention to exit these contracts.

Legal advice to G4S criticized

Following fierce criticism of G4S involvement in the Israeli occupation, the company engaged Professor Hjalte Rasmussen to review its business in the West Bank and to provide a legal opinion. During a three-day trip to Israel and the West Bank, Rasmussen visited a number of banks and supermarkets in East Jerusalem, and a shopping mall in the settlement of Maale Adumim. He also collected information from G4S in London and Israel. Rasmussen did not visit Israeli prisons.

At the time, Dan Church Aid and Amnesty International Denmark expressed their discontent about the poor quality of Rasmussen’s report; the former described it as “shameful” because it contains so many errors. The Secretary General of Amnesty International Denmark, Lars Normann Jorgensen, said that “a case as serious as this one requires more thorough observations in the areas concerned than Hjalte Rasmussen has done.”

Nonetheless, G4S writes to Business & Human Rights that Rasmussen concluded that “G4S did not violate any national or international law.” Given its weaknesses, G4S would be ill-advised to rely solely on Rasmussen’s opinion in concluding that their activities do not violate international law.

Contractual obligations no justification for continued complicity in the occupation

However, G4S concluded that it “would aim to exit a number of contracts which involved the servicing of security equipment at the barrier checkpoints, a prison and a police station in the West Bank,” explicitly excluding the provision of services to private enterprises in the settlements. In addition, G4S shows no intention of terminating its services to prisons in Israel. As long as G4S is in any way involved in the detention of Palestinian political prisoners in Israel or the West Bank, it is not moving in the right direction.

Moreover, exiting the contracts concerning the checkpoints, a prison and a police station in the West Bank might take until 2015. The company decided that it needs the permission of its clients – who are engaged in implementing the occupation and repression – to exit the contracts before the expiry date. Contractual obligations to Israeli state organizations cannot justify the company’s continued complicity in the occupation.

G4S should therefore remain a target of the international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement as long as it continues to deliver services to the Israeli police, the Ministry of Defense, the Israeli Prison Service, the Israeli army, and the settlement businesses of any other client, since they are all key activities in the oppression of the Palestinian people.

First published at.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Delegitimizing political prisoners

Israel does not recognize Palestinians who engage in resistance activities against the repression as combatants, protesters or “political” prisoners. To avoid giving legitimacy to their cause, it treats them as “terrorists,” ordinary criminals or security prisoners. The South African apartheid regime treated Nelson Mandela and his fellow political prisoners in a similar manner.

Moreover, Israel denies its political prisoners who qualify as combatants the status of prisoners of war (POW). It refuses to recognize that there is a conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people who are exercising their right to self-determination and statehood. POWs cannot be prosecuted and punished as ordinary criminals. Instead they may be detained until the conclusion of hostilities, when they are to be released and repatriated.

POW status is applicable to members of an organized group fighting “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination”, according to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and are subject to alien occupation and possibly colonial domination. The struggle between the PLO, as a national liberation movement, and Israel should therefore be recognized as an international armed conflict to which the Geneva Conventions apply.

The Palestine Liberation Organization undertook to apply the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I in a declaration, just like the African National Congress in South Africa. Many combatants meet the requirements laid down in Protocol I. They are members of an organized force, under a responsible command structure that complies with the rules of international humanitarian law.

Palestinian freedom fighters are not criminals

Israel resembles apartheid South Africa in refusing to sign Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. The Protocol’s extension of the benefits of the Geneva Conventions to the PLO as a national liberation movement is therefore not binding on Israel. However, Dugard argues that Protocol I has become part of customary international law because some 170 states are party to it. Israel is therefore bound by the Protocol despite the fact that it is not a party.

Hence contrary to their obligations under international customary law, the Israeli courts have rejected the argument that Palestinian resistance fighters are engaged in a war of self-determination and are therefore entitled to POW status. In addition, the Israeli courts have used the excuse in recent years that Palestinian resistance fighters fail to comply with the laws of armed conflict and therefore are not entitled to POW status.

But if Palestinian combatants were held as prisoners of war, they would be held until the end of the occupation, which could be for many years. They would be released at the same time as those convicted by Israeli military courts and imprisoned by Israel as criminals. So the practical implications of prisoner of war status are not significant.

However, the symbolic or political implications of the POW status are important. Prisoners of war are not treated as criminals but as worthy opponents in a military conflict, as freedom fighters engaged in a war of self-determination whose rights are recognized and determined by international law.

Military courts

In apartheid South Africa combatants were tried under criminal law. Such a trial gave the militants the opportunity to confront their opponent and advocate their cause in a political trial. In apartheid South Africa and Namibia militants used the political trial to good effect. Ably defended by competent and sympathetic lawyers in non-military courts open to the public and attended by the press and foreign observers, they exploited the rules of procedure and evidence to the advantage of their political cause. The history of apartheid is replete with political trials that advanced the stature of the defendants and highlighted repression and discrimination.

Most Palestinian combatants are tried by military courts despite international humanitarian law’s preference for impartial civilian courts. Military courts are intended to be the exception and not the rule, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Such courts are staffed by military judges lacking independence and sit in inaccessible places, sometimes behind closed doors, applying an inaccessible military law with little regard for the rules of due process.

In general, Palestinian militants are not given the opportunity to confront the occupying power in open court before impartial judges applying due process of law.

The Israeli regime murders political opponents

Those who refuse to accept the comparison of Israel’s repressive regime in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to that of apartheid proudly proclaim that at least Palestinian political prisoners are not executed and that Israeli is a state that has de facto abolished the death penalty. It is true that apartheid South Africa executed political prisoners after trial before civilian, non-military courts applying proper legal procedures.

But more Palestinians have been killed in targeted assassinations of combatants than were judicially executed in South Africa. Israel is not an abolitionist state. It is a state that practices capital punishment in an arbitrary and capricious manner without a trial. However cruel and inhuman the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, however unfair the trials that sent them to prison, and however demeaning their characterization as “criminals” or “terrorists”, we should not forget that Palestinian prisoners are the fortunate ones. For they were not murdered by a regime that murders political opponents under the euphemism of “targeted assassinations”.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org