By Audrey Bomse

INTRODUCTION:

Since 1967, well over 650,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza have
been detained by Israel for resisting the Occupation. This constitutes
approximately 20% of the total Palestinian population in the Occupied
Territories and 40% of the total male population. Approximately half a
million Palestinians have been prosecuted in Israeli courts. An
extraordinary percentage of them, over 95 percent, have been convicted.
Thousands of others have been held without charges or trial.

Prison is a central feature of Palestinian life. Often the issue of
Palestinian prisoners is looked at exclusively from a humanitarian
perspective. International agencies and human rights organizations focus on
conditions inside prisons, the use of torture and the practice of
administrative detention. The imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians is
rarely analyzed in a political context. However, to understand the
importance of the issue of prisoners today in Palestine, we need to see it
in context. The Israeli Occupation is a system of control which affects
every aspect of Palestinian life: control of land, resources and lives.
Prison plays a critical a role in enforcing this system of control. Mass
imprisonment is a conscious Israeli policy aimed at demoralizing and
defeating the Palestinian people. It is designed not only to punish, but
also to intimidate and render the population passive by convincing it that
resistance is useless. Imprisonment also serves to gather information about
and to control Palestinian political activity.

Because of the importance imprisonment plays in the Palestinian national
struggle, the release of the Palestinian prisoners has become a key issue
that must be resolved before any real progress can be made towards a just
and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. One of the principal causes
of the al-Aqsa intifada was the Palestinian prisoners and the failure of
the Oslo peace process to bring about their release. The Israeli
authorities know that peace is not possible without the prisoners' release
and have used the issue as a bargaining chip, occasionally releasing a few
hundred prisoners and detainees in well publicized "good will" or
"confidence building gestures." Most of those released were either due to
go home soon anyway or had never been charged at all. These have all been
empty gestures by Israel, aimed at influencing world opinion.

There remain over 7,500 incarcerated Palestinians. Many of them have never
been charged, no less convicted of any criminal or security offense, and
have been detained indefinitely, under administrative detention orders.
Included among those detainees is the pivotal national political cadre who
mobilized the resistance. Others have been released without ever being
charged, after days or even weeks in which they were subjected to coercive
interrogation and were confined in inhumane conditions. Still others have
been treated as criminals, as Israel has labeled criminal every act of
resistance to the military occupation. They have been tried in military
courts, where the procedures are summary and lacking in due process. The
majority of sentenced Palestinian prisoners are serving long sentences,
including multiple life.

Palestinians, as every other people in the world, have the right to
self-determination. While international law is silent on the rights of an
occupied people to resist an occupation that flagrantly violates their most
fundamental rights and infringes their self-determination, such rights
logically flow from the general support given to the decolonization process
and from the related legitimacy of efforts by colonized peoples to engage
in struggle, including armed struggle. The right--both legally and morally--of a people to oppose occupation is thus derived from the right to
self-determination. Moreover, the duration of the denial of a people's
right to self-determination must be taken into account in evaluating its
recourse to force. It is the position of this paper that armed struggle
against the Occupation that respects the rules of war is legitimate. It is
certainly eminently reasonable. At issue here is the substantive question
of both the right of a people living under an oppressive occupation to
oppose that occupation and the scope of that right. But it must be
emphasized that there can be no discussion of the legality or morality of
Palestinian means of resistance without taking into consideration the
fundamental relationship between occupying state and occupied people,
between the Occupation and the Resistance to it.

This paper will not only point out the countless ways in which Israel
violates international human rights and humanitarian law in its handling of
Palestinian prisoners, but will also analyze Israel's continuing ability to
flaunt international law with impunity. The State of Israel has ratified
the Geneva Conventions, as well as the main human rights treaties,
including the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (CRC). Rather than denouncing or rejecting these treaties and the
principles contained in them, Israel simply denies their applicability to
the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) - or it tries to hide its
behavior in secrecy. It excuses those violations it admits to as necessary
for "security" in the fight against "terrorism." The United Nations and
all impartial international law experts have overwhelmingly supported the
view that both the Geneva framework and human rights law are applicable to
the OPT. However, that has not stopped the violations from occurring or
the Palestinian people from suffering.

International humanitarian and human rights law, like all other law, is not
neutral. Those who control the mechanisms of enforcement decide if and how
to use them. Therefore, if Israel's policies and practices concerning
imprisonment are to be stopped, they must be understood and fought within a
political framework, not simply through appeals to international law. The
human rights/humanitarian situation in Palestine has been well documented
for many years in UN reports, as well as by Palestinian, Israeli and
international human rights and humanitarian organizations. It has been the
subject of endless international debate. While the people in many parts of
the world may not be aware of the facts, their governments' failure to act
is not due to ignorance, but, rather, to a conscious decision not to act.
This decision reflects the double standards that exist in the international
legal system, which in principle sets objective standards, but in reality,
enforces these standards selectively


ISRAEL'S VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Mass Arrests and Arbitrary Detention
Israel arrests Palestinians of all ages--without warrant, probable cause
or even reasonable suspicion to believe they were involved in any
"criminal" or "security" risk behavior--from cities, villages and refugee
camps throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), as well as at
military checkpoints and border crossings. Arrests from home typically
take place at night, with groups of soldiers banging on or breaking down
the door, then entering the house, terrifying its occupants and humiliating
the arrestee in front of his family. The arrest process is typically
accompanied by degrading and inhumane treatment. Effectively, Israeli
soldiers act with total impunity, with no external monitoring or observation.

Some times, during invasions of Palestinian residential areas, all males
between the ages of 15-45 are rounded up and detained, both as a form of
collective punishment and as a means of obtaining information. For example,
on April 2, 2003, the Tulkarem Refugee Camp was invaded by a large force of
Israeli soldiers and border police, backed up by attack helicopters and
tanks. All men and boys between 15 and 45 were detained and interrogated,
one by one. The army eventually detained 13 men who it claimed were
"wanted terrorists." The majority of the approximately 3,000 other men and
boys were taken several kilometers away in trucks, dumped out in the
streets and ordered not to go back home for three days.

The military orders are written so broadly that, in effect, any Israeli
soldier, police officer--even settler--an arrest and detain a
Palestinian at any time. Political activity is not a prerequisite for
arrest; being Palestinian, particularly male, is the major risk factor. The
arresting body, the Israeli Army or the General Security Service (GSS),
need not - and indeed does not - inform families of those arrested of
either the fact of their arrest or the location of their detention.
Children are not spared this treatment, although it is contrary to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)--to which Israel is a State
Party, which stipulates that children under the age of 18 should not be
deprived of their liberty except as a last resort and must not be subjected
to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The definition of
'child' illustrates one of the fundamental differences between Israeli
civil law and Israeli military orders and is an example of Israel's
legalized racism. Israeli civil law follows the CRC, which defines anyone
under 18 years as a child. In contrast, Israeli military law defines
Palestinian children from the OPT who are 16 and over as adults. This is
reflected in their arrest, trial and sentences.

The large number of people arrested and detained for a short time with very
little interrogation, and the consistent use of degrading treatment,
indicate that the aim of such large-scale arrests is to collectively punish
and humiliate the Palestinian people. The likelihood that any Palestinian
male can be arrested at any time takes a psychological toll on the entire
Palestinian population. While the arrests are often arbitrary, the kinds
of abuse to which those who are arrested are subjected are not. The fact
that the same kinds of abuses are mentioned by almost every arrestee
indicates the deliberate and conscious nature of the arrest and detention
process.

The detainees have few rights. An attorney need not be provided. Indeed,
prohibiting detainees from meeting with an attorney is routine policy and
detainees are often held for periods of up to 90 days without being allowed
to meet with counsel. The importance of this denial of access to counsel
cannot be sufficiently stressed. An attorney could, from the moment of
detention, advise the detainee of his/her rights, including the right not
to incriminate himself, and could ensure that those rights are respected.
Counsel could attempt to ensure that interrogations are conducted properly
and that the detainee understands the legal significance of his/her
actions. Moreover, the denial of counsel ensures that no external witness
will personally observe the abusive treatment or its results.

If charges are not brought, the detainees are often almost literally thrown
out of detention, released without identity papers or money, sometimes
still handcuffed, many miles from home. These mass arbitrary arrests and
detentions violate international human rights and humanitarian law. They
violate personal freedom and harm the individual's family and livelihood.
The Geneva Conventions require, at minimum, a "status determination" of
each and every detainee before a "competent tribunal." No person should
simply be detained without due process, no matter who that person is.

Palestinian civilians who have not participated in the hostilities are
entitled to all the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention. They
should be absolutely protected from violence to their persons and from
assaults upon their personal dignity, such as humiliating and degrading
treatment. They are entitled, in all circumstances to respect for their
persons and their honor, and should at all times be treated humanely and
protected against all acts of violence or threats of violence. No
physical or moral coercion should be exercised against them to obtain
information from them or from third parties. No protected person may be
punished for an act s/he has not personally committed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that "[e]veryone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person" and "[n]o one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. These rights are
reiterated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 9, which also stipulates: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time
of the arrest of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed
of any charges against him. All of these protections are violated, on a
daily basis by Israel.

2. Torture

A large percentage of Palestinian detainees are subjected to systematic
abuse and severe mistreatment, often amounting to torture, during
interrogation. The methods of torture include beatings, sleep deprivation,
denial of medical care, threats of physical or sexual abuse and insults,
violent shaking, excessive shackling of hands and feet so as to cause
injury, and the infamous shabah, prolonged sitting tied to a small chair in
painful positions. Taken individually, particular acts may not
constitute torture; but taken together, they undoubtedly do. The pattern
of abuse inflicted by different branches of the military and the police is
strikingly consistent as evidenced in the testimonies gathered by
Palestinian, international and Israeli human rights organizations. These
methods are designed to inflict a maximum amount of pain, while leaving a
minimum amount of physical evidence. In addition to seeking to obtain
information and coerce confessions, the abuse is designed to induce fear
and terror. The use of torture is a conscious decision on the part of the
Israeli state, part of its overall strategy to undermine all actual or
potential resistance to the Occupation. It is aimed both at the individual
and at the Palestinian people, as a whole. Torture is more than just the
extreme violation of the individual. It is used by one group against
another as a means of domination and control. According to the Center for
Victims of Torture (a US non-governmental organization): "The purpose of
torture is to control populations by destroying individual leaders and
frightening entire communities."

Confessions that result from such coercion are inherently unreliable,
especially when given by children. Yet evidence obtained by torture is
admissible in Israeli military tribunals. The number of confessions
currently obtained by Israeli interrogators, as well as their detail and
content is truly shocking. Literally thousands of Palestinians have been
sent to prison solely on the basis of their own or third party confessions
(by close associates or co-defendants) that implicate them, because such
confessions are difficult to contest successfully in court, can outweigh
contradictory testimony or even exculpatory evidence and, under Israeli
law, need only a scintilla (dvar ma) of corroboration (e.g., any evidence
that the confession could be true, such as that the event in question
actually happened). Incredibly, the signed confessions are written in
Hebrew, a language most Palestinian detainees do not read or understand.

Torture is absolutely prohibited, under any circumstances, by international
law. The Fourth Geneva Convention strictly forbids torture and it is
described as a "grave breach" under Article 147, making it a war crime.
Torture is also categorically prohibited by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (Article 5), the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (Article 7), and the Convention against Torture. Israel is a
signatory to these key human rights covenants, and is therefore legally
bound by their prohibitions.

Until 1999, the use of torture was legal in Israel. In a landmark ruling,
after years of work by human rights organizations and individual
lawyers, the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ), in September 1999, banned
a number of interrogation methods consistently used by the Israeli Security
Service (GSS), including shaking, prolonged squatting on haunches, painful
handcuffing, shabah, hooding, and the playing of loud music. However the
judgment left major loopholes by which methods amounting to torture might
continue. Interrogators may still claim the 'defense of necessity.'
Only means 'other than that which is inherently required by the
interrogation' are forbidden; sleep deprivation under intensive
interrogation and other forms of "moderate physical pressure" are not. In
November 2001, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that what Israel
defines as moderate physical pressure "is still torture and violates the UN
Convention Against Torture." The consistent reports of torture from
Palestinian detainees reveal that even the High Court ruling of 1999 is no
longer being followed. It is probably impossible to prevent torture
through a court ruling, particularly one which is so limited in scope. Only
the absolute prohibition of torture by law can prevent its use in the future.

Using the excuse of security and defense of necessity, and trying to frame
the debate in terms of the "ticking bomb," Israel justifies its continuing
widespread use of physical and psychological abuse. In response to
criticism from the international community (UN committees, human rights
organizations, etc.), it simply denies that it practices torture. This
debate has gone on for at least 30 years and will likely continue.

3. Conditions of confinement

Israel's violation of minimum basic international human rights and
humanitarian law standards regarding the conditions of confinement of
Palestinians is systematic. The basic rights, health and human dignity of
Palestinian prisoners are regularly abused, without even an attempt to
cover up the wrongdoing. Israeli prisons and detention centers are severely
overcrowded; detainees are regularly forced to sleep on the floor. The
isolation, poor sanitary conditions, inadequate medical care, food and
housing compound the problem. Some facilities, like the notorious Ketziot
detention camp (Ansar III) in the Negev desert, consist entirely of tents,
with little or no protection from the harsh desert weather. DCI-Palestine
reported that in May 2003, 120 people at Ansar III, including 28 children,
were forced to share two rundown showers and four toilets. Many are
housed in cells that are insect and rat-infested. Palestinian child
detainees are sometimes confined with criminal adults, and most are
denied access to any sort of education. Despite the efforts of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), family visits to prisoners
are either completely denied or made near impossible by Israels repeated
closure of the Occupied Territories. Lawyers from the OPT are similarly
prevented from seeing their clients. Palestinian prisoners regularly
protest their inhumane conditions of confinement and their non-violent
protests are often put down by Israeli police using excessive force.

The Fourth Geneva Convention requires that protected persons accused or
convicted of offenses enjoy conditions of food and hygiene sufficient to
keep them in good health and receive all necessary medical attention. In
addition, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the Basic Principles for the
Treatment of Prisoners are all binding on Israel to the extent that the
norms set out in them explicate the broader standards contained in human
rights treaties. They require adequate housing accommodations, with due
regard paid to climatic conditions and minimum floor space, adequate
lighting and heating, adequate sanitary and shower facilities, clothing and
bedding, and adequate food and medical services. Family visits and regular
confidential visits by counsel are mandatory.

In addition, Israel arrests Palestinians in Palestinian territory and then
transfers them to detention centers and prisons inside Israel. This
constitutes forcible transfer of these prisoners from occupied territory to
the occupying state, in clear contravention of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, Articles 49 and 76. This prohibition is part of international
customary law and is clearly binding on Israel. Article 147 states that
violation of Article 49 is a "grave breach" of the Convention and
constitutes a war crime.

4. Administrative detention

There has been massive use of detention, without charge or trial, of
Palestinians authorized by administrative detention orders, rather than by
judicial decree. While administrative detention is permitted under
international law, it is tolerated only as an exceptional measure "if the
security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary." Due to
the serious injury to due process rights inherent in administrative
detention and the obvious danger of abuse, rigid restrictions have been
placed on its application. Its overuse violates the Fourth Geneva
Convention (Article 42), as well as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (Articles 9-10) and the International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights (Articles 9(1), 14). It cannot be used as punishment. It
may only be resorted to when other, less severe measures have proved
ineffective. It must never be applied collectively, but only on an
individual basis, relying on suspicions against the particular person.
Administrative detainees must be provided with proper housing, clothing,
and food and regular family visits; they must be allowed to continue their
work and studies, to the extent possible. Israel blatantly ignores all of
these restrictions.

The numbers of administrative detainees alone shows how much the procedure
is abused: as of February 29, 2005, there were 855 Palestinian
administrative detainees. Administrative detention is used as a means of
collective punishment during times of conflict. It is also used to punish
those against whom there is not enough evidence to bring to trial, or even
to intimidate lawyers, other human rights workers, and political leaders.

While each administrative detention warrant must undergo a military
judicial review, this summary proceeding in which basic due process rights
- such as the right to be informed of the allegations (if any) against them
and to present a defense - are non-existent, does not prevent misuse of the
measure, as the overwhelming number of warrants are approved.
Administrative detention is renewable indefinitely every six months, so the
detainees do not know when they will be released. While most detainees
receive a six-month administrative detention order, some have served years.
Administrative detainees are often subjected to torture during
interrogation and do not have the right to remain silent. Basic rights,
such as the right to counsel, to be brought promptly before a judge, and to
meaningfully contest the detention are missing. The evidence forming the
basis of the order is secret and is not made available either to the
detainee or counsel. Clearly, such detention seriously infringes upon the
individuals right to protection from arbitrary arrest and entitlement to a
fair and public hearing. Furthermore, because Palestinian political and
community leaders have been particularly targeted, Palestinian society as a
whole has been negatively impacted.


5. The Military Injustice System

The Israeli military court system was established on the third day of the
Six Day War in 1967, in one of the first official acts of the military
administration of the occupied territories. This indicates the importance
that the state of Israel attaches to the use of law (and also indicates how
prepared Israel was for occupation). Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories are under a system of military justice that gives them rights
that are far inferior to those of Israelis. They are arrested, prosecuted,
tried and imprisoned within the Israeli military system, which also
appoints and administers the bodies which hear any appeals, except those
made to the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ).

Individuals charged with security violations, political or other offenses
are detained in accordance with military orders and are tried as criminals
in military tribunals that fail to meet international fair trial standards.
The military administration has never published a comprehensive
compilation of all military orders in force in the territories.
Palestinians are not provided with legal representation. If the defendant
is not represented by an attorney, the military court simply proceeds
without one. There are no special courts for Palestinian children and
children above the age of 12 appear before regular military tribunals. The
Judge Advocate General is both the prosecuting authority and the judge,
thus denying Palestinians a fair hearing before an independent and
impartial tribunal. Evidence obtained through torture is admissible. The
system includes judges who are not lawyers. All this is in clear
violation of international hum rights and humanitarian law, which mandates
access to adequate legal representation, as well as a fair trial. The
military courts issue prison sentences based not on objective legal
standards, but on Israeli policy objectives. which are influenced by the
prevailing political situation. Justice is not done, nor does the system
even make the effort to create the impression of doing justice.

With the start of the second intifada in 2000, the conditions in the
military courts deteriorated to an all-time low. The military judicial
system became a legal "assembly line," where the chances of a Palestinian
getting a thorough and professional hearing are just about nil. The system
became so severely over-burdened with the huge number of detainees and
court cases that some judges were hearing 10 cases a day. Furthermore,
the vastly heightened security measures imposed during the intifada
severely impacted lawyers' abilities to do their work. Palestinian lawyers
can only appear in courts in areas near where they live, assuming they can
get the necessary permits to enter the military compounds. Accessing
detention facilities and even having face-to-face meetings with witnesses
and families of clients has become exceedingly difficult, while accessing
clients in prisons located in Israel has become impossible.

Over 95 percent of Palestinians prosecuted in Israeli military courts are
convicted. Of the convictions, approximately 97 percent are the result of
plea bargains, both because most defendants have signed confessions and
because of the near impossibility of successfully contesting charges at
trial, due to the evidentiary weight of confessions, the difficulty of
challenging coerced confessions, the use of secret evidence that is
unavailable to defense lawyers, and the tendency of military judges to
prefer evidence and testimony provided by military prosecutors. While plea
bargaining gives individuals who have admitted guilt the best sentence they
could hope for under the circumstances, the politics of plea bargaining
contradicts the politics of resistance. It is a strategy of concessions,
in which the defendant concedes not only guilt, but also the legitimacy of
the tribunal, as well as the law. Arrest is generally seen as a foreclosing
of political opportunity and the courts are regarded as the place where
resistance ends.

The Failure of International Law and International
Institutions to Protect the Palestinian People

Israel has been able to commit widespread, systematic violations of
international humanitarian and human rights law with apparent impunity from
international censure or pressure. It has done this by manipulating
international law and the UN bodies responsible for overseeing compliance.
Ever since the Occupation began in 1967, UN bodies have received extensive
and thoroughly documented reports detailing Israel's violations. Israel's
response is that the various international treaties and human rights
instruments are not applicable in the OPT. Israel refuses to cooperate
with UN missions and fact-finding bodies investigating its behavior. It has
avoided acknowledging non-compliance with its legal obligations and
reporting requirements. Everything it does has been justified as
self-defense, necessitated by 'security.' Israel has manipulated the
entire UN system, consistently and flagrantly defying the will of the UN
with regard to Palestinian rights for more than five decades

The UN has established two mechanisms to monitor Israel's conduct in the
OPT. In 1968, the General Assembly established the UN Special Committee to
Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population
of the Occupied Territories (Special Committee). From the start, Israel
has consistently objected to the existence of this Special Committee, has
refused to cooperate with it and has even refused it entry into the OPT.
Each year, the Special Committee is forced to meet in neighboring Arab
countries to hear from victims of human rights abuse and human rights
defenders before issuing its annual report. In 1993, the UN established the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of
Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, which is
mandated to investigate Israel's violation of the principles of
international humanitarian and human rights law. Israel objects to the
Special Rapporteur's mandate and refuses it any and all cooperation.


Over the years, Israel has similarly refused to cooperate with UN
committees mandated to monitor implementation of major human rights
treaties. The Committee Against Torture, established by Article 20 of the
CAT, for instance, is mandated to inquire into the practice of a State
Party if that Party has agreed to accept that article. When it ratified
the CAT, Israel refused to accept this article. It similarly declined to
accept Articles 21 and 22 which establish a mechanism for the Committee to
receive complaints about a State Party's failure to comply with its
obligations from other States Parties or from individuals within the State
Party's jurisdiction and then to request that the State Party address those
concerns in writing. In its report to the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child in 2002, Israel refused to provide any information or comment
concerning its actions in the OPT, despite the Committee's specific request
of it to do so. The Committee rejected Israel's arguments concerning the
non-applicability of the CRC to the OPT, but since there is no enforcement
mechanism to compel Israel to comply with the treaty's compulsory reporting
requirement, no further action was taken.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the
Commission of Human Rights to hear individual complaints. As early as 1992,
the Working Group held that the administrative detention by Israel of two
Palestinians "cannot be justified on any legal basis. It is declared to be
arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Israel is a
party." The decision went on to request that the Government of Israel
take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. Israel had not even
deigned to respond to the allegations. Needless to say, it took no steps to
remedy the situation, either by releasing the individual complainants or
limiting its widespread use of administrative detention. In 1997, Ribhi
Qattamesh, a lawyer and journalist serving his seventh consecutive
detention without being brought to trial, along with two other Palestinians
similarly detained for unknown reasons, complained to the Working Group.
Israel did not reply. The Working Group Opinion concluded: "Prolonged
periods of administrative detention without remedy renders the detention
illegal. The detainees have a right to be tried without undue delay."
Its request that Israel remedy the situation was again met by disdained
silence. 'Abd Al-Rahman 'Abd Al-Ahmar complained in 1997 of his arbitrary
detention by Israel, during which he was subjected to torture. Israel did
not respond to the allegations. The Working Group held that Al-Ahmar had a
right to be tried "without undue delay." Not only was Al-Ahmar neither
tried nor released following this decision, but he was subsequently
detained administratively several different times. All told, Al-Ahmar was
held in administrative detention for a total of 11 years.

In April 2002, the UN Secretary-General proposed establishing a
fact-finding mission to gather information about conditions in the Jenin
Refugee Camp before and during Israel's military occupation. The proposal
was endorsed by the Security Council. However, because of Israel's refusal
to cooperate and allow the fact-finding team to enter the OPT, the
Secretary-General had to disband this team. The General Assembly then
commissioned its own report on the situation in Jenin, but Israel refused
to provide it with any relevant information and refused it entry into the
occupied territories.

The pattern is clear, as is the conclusion that international human
rights/humanitarian institutions have failed to end Israel's abuses,
including the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In
failing to take action, states around the world have violated their own
obligations under international law. For international human rights and
humanitarian law to be enforced, governments around the world need to show
the political will to take concrete action to ensure compliance with
international standards. It is this political will that has been lacking.
All sorts of political and economic considerations have influenced
governmental decisions and trumped human rights and humanitarian
considerations. Not only have major states passively accepted Israel's
violations of international law, by declining to enforce it, several states--
most notably the United States--have actively supported Israel
militarily and financially, thus facilitating its violations. The
international community's failure to rise to its obligations has pointed
out a fundamental problem in the international legal framework. It also has
weakened efforts to promote societies based on respect for human rights and
the rule of law. The human rights discourse is in danger of becoming
self-defeating as words like democracy, liberation and freedom are
hypocritically used to describe their opposite.

International civil society must shoulder the task of generating the
governmental political will to enforce international human rights and
humanitarian law. Simply documenting Israel's human rights and humanitarian
law violations is not enough. They are not occurring in a vacuum; they are
deliberate policies designed to maintain the Occupation. Only when a
sustained popular movement calling for sanctions, similar to the one which
eventually ended governmental support for the apartheid regime of South
Africa, comes into effect will things change. Only then will the Occupation--
and the abuse it entails, some of which have been outlined in this paper--end.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login