CHAPTER TWENTY NINE - Part 6 of 7

ISRAELI WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED AGAINST PALESTINIANS DURING THE INTIFADA DECEMBER 1987-APRIL 1990

THE UNITED NATIONS CONDEMNS ISRAELI POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND VIOLATION OF PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES

CONDEMNATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

On October 6, 1989, the General Assembly condemned the policies and practices of Israel "which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory," citing practices, including firing upon innocent civilians by the Israeli army, the deportation of civilians, the demolition of houses and collective punishments and detentions.

The Assembly took that action by adopting a resolution concerning the question of Palestine by a recorded vote of 140 in favor to 2 against (Israel, the United States), with 6 abstentions (Antigua and Barbuda, El Salvador, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, Zaire).

QUESTION OF PALESTINE

Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malt, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Yugoslavia: revised draft resolution.

The uprising (intifada) of the Palestinian people

The General Assembly,

Aware of the uprising (intifada) of the Palestinian people since 9 December 1987 against Israeli occupation, which has received significant attention and sympathy from world public opinion,

Deeply concerned at the alarming situation in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 as a result of the continued occupation by Israel, the occupying Power, and of its persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people,

Reaffirming that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem and to the other occupied Arab territories,

Expressing its profound shock at the continued measures by Israel, the occupying Power, including the killing and wounding of Palestinian civilians and the recent action of ransacking the houses of defenceless civilians in the Palestinian town of Beit Sahour,

Stressing the need to promote international protection to the Palestinian civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, Recognizing the need for increased support to, aid for and solidarity with the Palestinian people under occupation,

Having considered the recommendations contained in the report of the Secretary-General,

Recalling its relevant resolutions as well as the relevant Security Council resolutions,

1. Condemns those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, such acts as the opening of fire by the Israeli army and settlers that result in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians, the beating and breaking of bones, the deportation of Palestinian civilians, the imposition of restrictive economic measures, the demolition of houses, and ransacking of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, collective punishment and detentions, and so forth;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, abide scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and that it desist immediately from those policies and practices which are in violation of the provisions of the Convention;

3. Calls upon all the High Contracting Parties to the Convention to ensure respect by Israel, the occupying Power, for the Convention in all circumstances in conformity with their obligation under article 1 thereof;

4. Strongly deplores the continuing disregard by Israel, the occupying Power, of the relevant decisions of the Security Council;

5. Reaffirms that the occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories since 1967, including Jerusalem, and of the other occupied Arab territories, in no way changes the legal status of those territories;

6. Requests the Security Council to consider with urgency the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory with a view to considering measures needed to provide international protection to the Palestinian civilians in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

7. Invites Member States, the organization of the United Nations system, governmental, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, and the mass communications media to continue and enhance their support for the Palestinian people;

8. Requests the Secretary-General to examine the present situation in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, by all means available to him and to submit periodic reports thereon, the first such report as soon as possible.

VOTE ON RESOLUTION ON QUESTION OF PALESTINE

The General Assembly adopted a resolution on the question of Palestine (document A/42/L.2/Rev. 1) by a recorded vote of 140 in favor to 2 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favor: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea. Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, USSR, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, El Salvador, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, Zaire. Absent: Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Malawi, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia. Solomon Islands.

CONDEMNATION BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL

On November 6 and 7, 1989, the United Nations Security Council debated the policies and practices of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. The following are extracts from the statements by the ambassadors of several important States:

Ambassador Alexander M. Belonogov, USSR: The Security Council has listened to statements by the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations, who spoke as Chairman of the Group of Arab States; by the Permanent Observer of Palestine; by the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia, who spoke as Chairman of the Group of Islamic States; by the Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia, who spoke as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries; by the Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States, Mr. Clovis Maksoud, and by many others.

Those statements, which reflected the views of the overwhelming majority of the members of the international community, were imbued with an undisguised note of alarm at the situation in the occupied Arab territories. The evidence they give of illegal actions by Israel in the occupied Arab territories is compelling and needs no further comment. Indeed, the news from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is like the news from a battlefront. Israel, which refuses to recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, stubbornly persists in its occupation of the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967 and is attempting to suppress by force the aspirations of the Palestinian people to the exercise of their political and civil rights.

The Palestinians are being subjected to discrimination, to economic and social pressures and to the deprivation of their cultural heritage, and they are even being driven from their ancestral lands. The Soviet Union condemns such repressive and illegal action on the part of the Israeli authorities against the populations of the West Bank and Gaza.

The clearly provocative actions taken by the Israeli authorities have also been directed against religious communities in the occupied territories. Among those have been the blockade of Beit Sahur and the attempt by a group of Zionist extremists to lay the foundation stone for the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon near one of the Holy Places in the Moslem world, the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

We also condemn the attempts by the Israeli authorities to impede the humanitarian work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). We are seriously concerned at the use of force against the Agency's international staff, which is becoming increasingly frequent and widespread, and at the arrests and detention of staff members and the raids against a number of the Agency's offices in the occupied territories. We note the striking discrepancy between the Israeli Government's assurances that it is striving to achieve a political settlement and the actual policy being pursued by the Israeli authorities with regard to the intifada, the peaceful, non-violent mass manifestation of the will of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. In that connection, we firmly support the demand that the Government of Israel observe the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 1949, and other international instruments providing for the protection of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

Ambassador Klaus Tornudd (Finland): The situation in the territories occupied by Israel continues to be a source of grave concern to the international community. In recent months we have seen attempts to come to grips with the political aspects of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, although evidence of real progress has mostly been hard to detect. At the same time, we should like to see evidence of policies and practices designed to build confidence among the population of the occupied territories, which could lay the basis for stable and friendly coexistence in the region. What we see, however, is continuing tension, violations of human rights, and violations of international law.

A just, durable and peaceful settlement in the Middle East is not yet in sight, but the principles upon which it must be based are well known. In the long term, different political and security arrangments are conceivable, but one thing is clear: the occupation must come to an end. A way must be found for the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination in peace. Israel, like other States, must have secure and recognized borders. Until the occupation is over, the Palestinians deserve particular support and protection.

In this respect, the patient efforts of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) continue to be of central importance. The Task of UNRWA is difficult and demanding, and it is fundamental that UNRWA should be able to carry out all its humanitarian functions without hindrance. We are therefore very upset by the recent interventions by Israeli military units against UNRWA offices and personnel in the West Bank and Gaza. We trust that such interventions will not be repeated.

Others have already referred in this debate to recent excessive measures by the Israeli army in Beit Sahur and elsewhere in the occupied territories. Wedeploreall violence, and we appeal once more to the Israeli authorities to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, to respect human rights and, more than that, to show a constructive concern for the grievances of the Palestinian population.

Sir Crispin Tickell (United Kingdom): It is a matter of deep concern to my Government that the situation in the occupied territories has not improved since we last debated this subject, in June. Indeed, in many ways the situation has deteriorated. We are particularly concerned about the situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In his speech to the Special Political Committee on 24 October the Commissioner- General stated that UNRWA had had obstacles placed in its way by the Israeli authorities. We should not forget that UNRWA provides basic services for the most needy elements in the Palestinian population. In particular, my Government deplores the recent raids by the Israeli Defence Force on UNRWA premises in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These appear to be a violation of the privileges and immunities of a respected United Nations body. The Israeli authorities have still not responded to the protest made by UNRWA on 20 October. We hope that a reply will be forthcoming soon.

The situation in Beit Sahur seems to present a new example of repressive Israeli action in the occupied territories. The British Consul-General in Jerusalem has visited the town twice recently to see the situation there for himself. My Government is disturbed by his reports. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the tax strike by the citizens of Beit Sahur, due legal process must be followed. There can be no excuse for the illegal and arbitrary confiscation of furniture and household belongings and of the machinery which provides the livelihood for small business people. We have expressed our serious concern to the Israeli authorities and we call for an end to the blockading of Beit Sahur.

My government is also concerned that on 27 October the Israeli authorities prevented the Greek Orthodox, Latin and Armenian Patriarchs from visiting the town to celebrate mass and distribute food. This interference with freedom of religious practice runs counter to the basic principles for which all civilized countries, including Israel, stand.

Israel has continued to deport individuals from the occupied territories. in breach of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and in repeated defiance of this Council's resolutions. Education continues to suffer. The universities remain closed, and the education of many children has been damaged by the two-year closureof schools in the West Bank.

There is a continuing cost in human lives caused by the conflict in the occupied territories. My Government condemns all such killing - both the killing of civilians by the Israeli forces and the killing of so-called Palestinian collaborators. Violence begets violence.

Ambassador L. Yves Fortier (Canada): We are meeting in this Chamber to consider once again the situation in the occupied territories at a time when the concern of the community of nations for the situation in those troubled and strife-torn territories has deepened. Thecontinuing climate of violence only serves to lessen the chances for building a peaceful future and achieving a comprehensive political solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The acts of vigilantism which have occurred and the incidents of violence directed by Palestinians against other Palestinians are particularly distressing to my Government. Canada also remains deeply concerned at the continuing use, on the part of the Israeli authorities, of arbitrary measures, including collective punishment, as part of its efforts to attempt to repress the uprising in the occupied territories.

In that connection, the recent raids conducted by members of the Israeli security forces on offices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and frequent actions which prevent UNRWA staff from carrying out their mandate to provide educational, health and social services to the Palestinian refugees, cannot be passed over in silence. The Government of Canada has repeatedly called upon Israel to allow UNRWA to implement fully andeffectively its difficult mandate.

Canada believes the human rights of the Palestinian inhabitants of the occupied territories must be respected fully by the Israeli authorities, and we cannot accept the imposition of arbitrary measures and the use of collective punishment such as occurred recently in the town of Beit Sahur. These events have only served to underline the urgent need for the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention to be fully applied to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A decision on the part of the Israeli authorities to do so would make a significant contribution to establishing a climate in which a dialogue between the parties could lead to early results.

Ambassador Alvaro de Alencar (Brazil): Once again, the Arab Group has requested the Council to meet in order to examine the disturbing situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and once again we are faced with reports of repressive measures imposed by Israel in those territories. The recent events in the town of Beit Sahur indicate that the already appallingly long list of brutal repressive practices introduced by Israel in the territories has been expanded by actions such as besieging towns, putting unacceptable pressure on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and keeping it from carrying out its function of providing basic services, preventing the heads of religious communities from perfoming their religious functions, and ransacking houses for the purpose of illegally and arbitrarily confiscating valuables.

Such practices not only violate the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of which Israel is a Contrading Party, but they also have been taken in complete disregard of resolutions adopted by this Council, including resolution 605 (1987), whereby Israel, the occupying Power, was called upon to abide scrupulously by the Convention and to desist from policies and practices which are in violation of its provisions.

The policies and practices of repression implemented by Israel in the occupied territories throughout the Palestinian uprising have given rise to grave concern on the part of the international community. Accordingly, this Council has several times called upon Israel to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention and to accept its de jure applicability to the occupied territories. Such appeals have, unfortunately, been met with contempt and with even more repressive measures on the part of Israel.

It is therefore proper that now this Council should not only reiterate its call for Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease forthwith all acts that are in violation of its provisions, but also, as recently requested by the General Assembly in its resolution 44/2, to consider measures for the protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation. In order to implement the latter, the Council should endorse some of the recommendations contained in the Secretary- General's report of 21 January 1988 (S/19443).

The Brazilian delegation is ready to support the draft resolution contained in document S/20945/Rev. 1, which addresses the main points mentioned above and which might help diminish the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Ambassador Pierre-Louis Blanc (France): France views as particularly serious the situation prevailing in the occupied territories, which is becoming increasingly alarming. We are witnessing with growing concern a continuing escalation of violence and an intensification of confrontation in the West Bank and Gaza. The continuing repression by the occupying forces in those territories, which has already claimed hundreds of victims, including many adolescants and even small children, has with the passing months taken many different forms. and the Council's attention has been drawn to them on many occasions.

The facts before us today are particularly serious. The feelings they have aroused, both in the occupied territories and in the international community, as reflected by this meeting of the Security Council, are legitimate. Whatever the justifications offered, the events that have occurred at Beit Sahur and the methods employed by the Israeli army against its inhabitants must be condemned. My country also condemns the conduct of the military occupation authorities, which have forbidden access to the town by representatives of foreign States. The measures of confiscation that have been taken against the population of Beit Sahur should therefore be rescinded. On behalf of my Government, I once again call upon Israel strictly to respect its obligation as an occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Recent developments in the situation on the ground, and particularly the sorry affair at Beit Sahur, are further indications of the untenable status quo in the occupied territories. Indeed, never has there been a greater need for violence and tension to give way to dialogue and negotiation, and prospects of this have emerged in recent months. We must all strive to encourage and strengthen them. Genuine and lasting peace can only be based on mutual recognition by Palestinians and Israelis of each other's respective rights and aspirations. In our view, and I repeat it here, a comprehensive political settlement - the imperative need for which is recognized by all - must ensure Israel's right to live within secure and recognized borders and the equally important right of the Palestinian people to a homeland in which they can establish the structures of their choice. France will continue its efforts to promote progress towards such a settlement.

In this connection the international community has a duty to perform and a role to play. In our view, it is within the framework of an international peace conference dealing with all aspects of the conflict and bringing together all the protagonists that negotiations between the parties directly concerned can finally be begun with the best possible chance of success.

Ambassador Li Luye, President of the Council and Representative of China: Both the Security Council and the General Assembly have considered the situation in the occupied Arab territories on many occasions and adopted numerous resolutions calling for strict compliance by the Israeli authorities with the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and the immediate cessation of their policies and practices in contravention of the provisions of the Convention. However, the Israeli authorities, in total defiance of the solemn and just demands and strong appeals of the international community, continue to subject the innocent Palestinian people in the occupied territories to such inhumane practices as killing, detention and deportation and demolition of houses. Several hundred Palestinian civilians have been killed in the past two years or so. Moreover, in disregard of the dangerous plight of the Palestinian refugees, the Israeli authorities have arbitrarily obstructed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in performing its duties by providing food, medicine and other humanitarian relief services. Such practices on the part of the Israeli authorities cannot but arouse the just resistance of the Palestinian people and the widespread condemnation of the international community.

The Chinese Government and people are greatly concerned at the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories and wish to express their deeply felt sympathy for the Palestinian people, who are now going through untold suffering as a nation. The Chinese delegation supports the draft resolution submitted by the non-aligned countries and is in favor of the Security Council taking action resolutely to check the Israeli authorities' suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION

On November 7,1989, the President of the Security Council put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/20945/Rev. 1 and the voting was as follows:

In favor: Algeria, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Malaysia, Nepal, Senegal, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia.

Against: United States of America.

RESOLUTION

Algeria, Colombia, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Nepal, Senegal and Yugoslavia: revised draft resolution.

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter dated 3 November 1989from the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for the month of November,

Recalling its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem and in particular resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987,

Taking note of General Assembly resolution 44/2 of 6 October 1989,

Bearing in mind the inalienable rights of all peoples recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Recalling also the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

Alarmed by the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Having heard the statements concerning the policies and practices of Israel, the Occupying Power, and the conduct of its troops and agents, in those territories, as manifested in the town of Beit Sahur, other towns and refugee camps,

Taking into account the immediate need to consider measures for the impartial and international protection of Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation,

Considering that the current policies and practices of Israel, the Occupying Power, in the occupied territory are bound to have grave consequences for the endeavours to achieve comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

1. Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the Occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, and in particular the siege of towns, the ransacking of the homes of inhabitants as has happened in Beit Sahur, and the illegal and arbitrary confiscation of their property and valuables;

2. Calls upon Israel to desist from committing such practices and actions and lift its siege;

3. Urges that Israel return the illegally and arbitrarily confiscated property to its owners;

4. Reaffirms once again that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Calls once again upon Israel, the Occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, and to desist forthwith from those policies and practices which are in violation of the provisions of the Convention;

6. Calls upon all the High Contracting Parties to the IV Geneva Convention to ensure respect for it, including the obligation of the Occupying Power under the Convention to treat the population of the occupied territory humanely at all times and in all circumstances;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to conduct on-site monitoring of the present situation in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, by all means available to him, and to submit periodic reports thereon, the first such report as soon as possible.

After casting the veto, Ambassador Pickering of the United States made the following statement:

The United States is deeply distressed by the continuing violence and confrontation in the occupied territories. We have repeatedly called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint, to avoid bloodshed and reduce tensions. We remain convinced that the situation in the occupied territories can be solved only through a comprehensive, negotiated settlement which is firmly based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and which recognizes Israel's need for secure and recognized boundaries and the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

In our view, repeatedrecourse to the Security Council with one-sided draft resolutions does not contribute to this process nor to a real reduction of confrontation in the occupied territories. Such draft resolutions and the divisive debate that accompanies them do not help to alleviate conditions in the area, nor do they help to create an atmosphere conducive to the establishment of a constructive dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. On the contrary, such resolutions and debates exacerbate tensions and distract the parties from the critical issues that need to be addressed in the region.

The text before the Council today, like others before it, criticizes Israeli actions without regard for theexisting political and security situation in the occupied territories. For example, there is no reference to acts of violence directed by Palestinians against Israelis, and by Palestinians against other Palestinians. All members are aware that the United States is not willing to support unbalanced proposals of this kind. Our voting record in the Security Council is clear. However, as members of the Council are also aware, we have accepted adoption of resolutions on these issues when they have met the test of balance and fairness. We also do not agree with the draft resolution's request that the Secretary-General conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories, as this connotes to us a permanent, ongoing presence on the ground. However, we do support efforts by the Secretary- General, and his representatives, to visit the occupied territories to report periodically on the situation there.

I need not reiterate United States policy regarding the human rights situation in the occupied territories or on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the area. These positions are well known. We have long opposed administrative detention, deportation and house destructions and sealings, and other forms of collective punishment, which are contrary to the provisions of that Convention. We have raised directly with the Government of Israel our concerns over such issues as the blockade of Beit Sahur, interference with the operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, school closures and other questions concerning Israel's administration of the occupied territories. Our dialogue with Israel on these questions will continue. For the reasons I have just described, my Government has voted against the draft resolution.

STATEMENTS FROM AMERICAN AND ISRAELI SOURCES TESTIFYING TO THE BRUTALITY OF THE REPRESSIVE ISRAELI MEASURES IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA STRIP

Anthony Lewis, the New York Times columnist, wrote the following article on October 29, 1989:

Suppose the people of some small American town decided to protest Federal Government policy by withholding their taxes. The Government responded by sending in the Army.

Soldiers cut all telephone lines to the town. They stopped food from coming in and barred all visitors. They imposed a curfew from 6:30 every evening to4:30 in the morning. They went into homes and took furniture and other belongings worth many times a family's unpaid taxes. They broke into shops and dumped goods in the streets. They arrested people and held them for days without charges.

Unthinkable? Of course it is, in this country. But it is happening in another, right now. And the Government responsible is not some remote totalitarian regime. It is the Government of an American ally, one that we have admired as an outpost of democracy and law: Israel.

Israeli soldiers have sealed off the town of Beit Sahour, in the occupied West Bank, since September 22. Telephone lines have been cut. The town has been declared a "closed military zone" and everyone from the outside world kept out - sympathetic Israelis, journalists, Western diplomats. Christian bishops who tried to bring three truckloads of food in the other day were turned back.

Beit Sahour is a town of 15,000, almost all Christians, near Bethlehem. It is a middle-class place. This summer its business and other leaders decided, as their part in the Palestinian protest against occupation, to withhold payment of Israeli taxes. Taxation without representation is a grievance in any case.

Despite the blockade, quite a lot has been reported about what has happened in Beit Sahour since September 22. The army has seized property worth many times the tax claims. It has ransacked shops. And according to the residents, it has systematically harassed and humiliated the people of Beit Sahour.

I telephoned an Israeli who knows the town well, Hillel Bardin, a computer programmer at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. For the last 18 months he has been part of a group of Israelis carrying on a dialogue with a group from Beit Sahour, exchanging visits and talking about Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Mr. Bardin began by saying that, apart from the tax protest, those in Beit Sahour who have spoken out for peace with Israel have been punished. He mentioned two men in his dialogue group, Jamal Hilal and Ghassan Antoni.

"Both have been arrested repeatedly since July," he said. "They are never questioned or charged with anything, just held for 18 days as Israeli law allows.

"The last time, October 25, they were beaten so badly by soldiers on the way to headquarters that Jamal still cannot walk properly. They are in prison again.''

As to the tax protest, Mr. Bardin said the reports of harassment and force in the Government's response were true. He said he had seen one man who was bloodied when soldiers came and took his furniture. At Elias Rishmawi's pharmacy, he said, "they put all the medicines in a large shipping container and left it in the sun until the drugs spoiled."

Any government will act against a concerted refusal to pay taxes. But the normal course is to act by law — by attaching property, and selling enough to pay the tax due. Israel has those legal remedies available. It is using military repression to show the Palestinians, as Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin has candidly said, that they cannot resist the occupation.

The irony is that Israel complains, rightly, when Palestinians use violence. Beit Sahour has chosen a totally nonviolent means of protest, and Israel is using force to crush it.

Beit Sahour's latest idea is to hold prayers for peace in its Roman Catholic Church next Sunday. It is asking President Bush and other world leaders to send representatives. If they did, would the Israeli army keep them out?

Some American supporters of Israel complain that the press pays too much attention to Israel's faults. The example of Beit Sahour shows that theoppressive reality of the occupation is in fact insufficiently known - to outsiders or to Israelis. If they knew it was happening, if they knew that Palestinians who want apeaceful solution are beingpunished, I think more Israelis would be ready to end the occupation.

"I am an Israeli who cares about the security of his country," Mr. Bardin said. "I believe that if Israelis could see what is really going on, we would have peace."

The brutality pervading Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians is graphically illustrated by the case of Shawan Jabarin, a Palestinian human rights worker, described in another article by Anthony Lewis, '"You Are a Dog' (A Case that should concern the friends of Israel)," published in the New York Times of October 22, 1989, as follows:

They blindfolded him and handcuffed him with his hands behind his back. Soldiers whispered in his ear, "You are a dog." After putting a cloth in his mouth to keep him from screaming, they burned him with a cigarette on his ear and hand. Then they took him into a bathroom and made him lie on the tile floor.

"One soldier ... stepped on my head, my chest and my hands. The soldier grabbed on to something located above him and began tojumpon me. This went on for approximately 10 minutes, and I felt I was going to die ...

"Blood was dripping from my mouth. The soldiers removed the blindfold from my eyes and cut off the plastic handcuffs. I tried to stand but was shoved to the ground by a soldier using his rifle .... Blood was dripping from my back, face, nose, shoulder, chest."

Those statements are taken from an affidavit sworn by Shawan Jabarin, a Palestinian human rights worker. Israeli forces took him from his home, near Hebron in the West Bank, on October 10. He is still being held.

An Israeli official, the legal adviser to the military government of the West Bank, confirmed that Mr. Jabarin had been beaten while in custody. he did so in a telephone conversation October 12 with the director of the West Bank human rights organization Al Haq, Mr. Jabarin's employer.

The legal adviser also confirmed that Mr. Jabarin had been taken to the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem for examination. Mr. Jabarin said he was brought there after an Israeli doctor saw him and said, "This one has been hit on the head, he cannot breathe, he must be hospitalized. I'm not ready to bear the responsibility."

Why was Shawan Jabarin beaten? Why was he arrested in the first place? To ask those questions is to look again at a reality that has begun to slip from our limited attention spans: the Kafkaesque reality of life in the territories occupied by Israel.

Mr. Jabarin is 29 years old. He is so respected as a human rights worker that he was recently nominated for the 1989 Reebok Human Rights Award, given to young people who have contributed to freedom of expression and human rights.

Last year he was detained for nine months, without trial, in the Ketziot prison in the Negev desert. Israeli officials said he was connected with the outlawed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but he was never charged with such an offense.

Since he left the detention camp he has had health problems, notably a heart condition marked by breathing difficulty. He has taken medication for that but has none with him now.

On October 4, soldiers came to Mr. Jabarin's house while he was away. He said they broke the door and two windows, smashed mirrors, threw clothes on the floor. They took away photographs and affidavits he had taken for Al Haq. No reason was given for the search or seizure.

Mr. Jabarin was asleep when soldiers came again on October 10. His wife, who is in her ninth month of pregnancy, awoke him. The soldiers took him away without letting him dress.

An Israeli lawyer, Lea Tsemel, was allowed to see Mr. Jabarin for 10 minutes on October 18. His head was still visibly swollen, she said. She took his affidavit - in as much detail as the brief time allowed.

I asked the director of Al Haq, MonaRishmawi, if she had any idea why Mr. Jabarin had been arrested. "He's one of our best field workers," she said. "He's very good with people; he has a strong personality. Maybe that qualifies him as a 'leader. "'

The case of Shawan Jabarin raised questions for Israel to answer: Why was he arrested? What legal action will be taken against those who beat him?

Israel's friends and supporters in the world should also think about the case. Many of them resent it when attention is called to brutality in the occupation. They argue that the press focuses too much on Israel when there are other, worse violators of human rights.

Yes, many governments in the world violate human rights. But none of them receive $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the United States. There are good reasons for that aid: reasons of history and shared interest. But in a time of budget stringency Americans will question spending that much on one country if they think it does not live up to minimum standards of humanity.

Supporters of Israel would serve its real interest if they raised voices of concern about Shawan Jabarin. Some of the leading Jewishorganizations of theunited States have always fought injustice wherever they have found it. It is time for them to speak out about the injustice that burdens the occupied territories and corrupts the occupiers.

Professor Burton Caine, a Jewish Professor of Law at Temple University and Tel Aviv University, wrote a letter to the New York Times, published on October 26,1989, in which he stated:

Hal Wyner's October 8 Op-Ed article on how Jews come to terms with Israeli misconduct in the occupied territories had to appear in the non-Jewish press because, unfortunately, the Jewish establishment in the United States refuses to deal with the issue. I learned this the hard way.

I have tried to report to the American Jewish community what I saw and heard in the interviewing Arab lawyers in Gaza and my correspondence with the advocate general of the Israeli Army on what I considered a denial of fundamental rights.

What I found was that an Arab lawyer from Gaza who was invited to participate in a meeting at Tel Aviv University protesting the Israeli occupation was arrested for expressing the same views as his Israeli hosts. The speech did not take place in the occupied territories, where Israel claims the right to suppress expression. Rather, the lecture was given in Israel — and at a university — where, under a series of Israeli Supreme Court decisions, this type of speech is protected. In the case of Israelis, and particularly the hatemonger Rabbi Meir Kahane, the High Court has afforded protection as liberal as any First Amendment decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Israeli academics protested outside the home of Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Then they went to Gaza to express their outrage, and another Arab lawyer who met with them there was jailed and was still in prison in Gaza when I interviewed him more than six months later. Of course, neither lawyer was informed of the charges against him nor was given access to the "secret evidence" that the advocate general of the Army wrote me was the basis of their convictions.

Many Israelis were saddened at these events. Unfortunately, more have been so worn down by the long years of struggle for a just solution with security that they cannot muster the strength to condemn violations of norms of decent behavior.

As a law professor teaching Constitutional law in the United States in the winter and in Israel in the summer, and a civil rights activist, I thought it important to report to the American Jewish community both the violation of rights in the occupied territories and the unwillingness or inability of well-meaning Israelis to do anything about it. My purpose was to do what is prescribed in Isaiah 582-3, read in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, "Raise your voice like a trumpet; tell Jacob's house their sins."

I felt betrayed when I discovered that the organized Jewish community in the United States was not interested in reportage critical of Israel and that its official media, which published articles I wrote on Jewish topics, refused to print anything embarassing to Israel. That, I was told, would delight enemies of the Jews and adversely affect fund raising.

It is time that Jews deal with the issue of whether abandoning values that Jews have fought and died for, and that are set forth in Israel's Declaration of Independence, is not too extravagant a price to pay for whatever temporary gain may be achieved by suppressing the aspirations of Arabs who are living under Israeli rule.

John V. Whitbeck, an American lawyer practicing in Paris, visited Israel and the Arab countries, meeting Palestinian and Zionist leaders. He advocates "Two States, One Holy Land," that is, a Jewish State and a Palestinian State united within one Holy Land. On August 22, 1989, he delivered a speech at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, chaired by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., in Washington, D.C., in which he stated, inter alia, the following concerning his visit to Israel:

... I was therefore looking forward to encountering open and inquiring minds actively interested in exploring viable frameworks for peace. I found no such minds. No one was interested in even discussing the terms of my framework and how they might be improved from an Israeli standpoint. Even my prominent peace activists told me that it was totally unrealistic, that nothing could be further from Israeli minds than living alongside Palestinians in a society of peaceful coexistence, human dignity and mutual respect and that all Israelis were currently interested in was crushing the Intifada and, if possible, expelling all Palestinians. Perhaps the most brutal verbal blow was struck by General Shiomo Gazit, who told me - and asked me to tell Chairman Arafat - that justice, morality, international law and international support were irrelevant, that Israel hadall the territory and would keep it. This visit to Israel forced me to conclude that, while a majority of Palestinians may now be capable of analyzing current realities, future possibilities and their own long-term self-interest in a rational way, rational Israelis are extremely scarce. Years of striving to justify the unjustifiable have produced tortured minds in a world of their own. Even one of the principal American diplomats in Israel toldme that Israelis are "crazy" (his word) on the subject of a Palestinian State.

Mr. Whitbeck concluded his speech by quoting Rehavam Zeevi, whose Molodet Party won two seats in November's Knesset elections on a platform advocating "transfer," the Israeli euphemism for the forced expulsion of the remaining two million Arabs of Palestine: "We came to conquer land and settle it. If transfer is not ethical, then everything we have done here for 100 years is wrong."

It is important to note that both Shlomo Gazit and Rehavam Zeevi were Palmach terrorists who took part in expelling the Palestinians in 1948 and in the looting, pillage and plunder of their possessions. As war criminals, their conscience is hardened and they still are bent on expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank and usurping their lands. homes and possessions as they did in 1948 and from 1967 until today.

 

STATISTICS ON THE INTIFADA

The following is a summary of statistics about the Intifada from December 1987 until the end of April 1990 (collected from various sources such as the DataBase Project, the Arab Studies Society, and the Reports of the United Nations Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Population in the Ocuppied Areas):

1.	Palestinian men, women and children killed by the Israeli Army and Jewish settlers:	950
2.	Palestinian men, women and juveniles arrested and put in prisons or concentration camps:	130
3.	Palestinian men, women and juveniles incarcerated in prisons and concentration camps (November, 1989):	15,000
4.	Palestinian men, women and children injured or maimed for life:	86,000
5.	Palestinian houses demolished:	1,228
6.	Palestinian houses sealed:	164
7.	Fruit and olive trees uprooted:	140,000

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWENTY NINE

1. Daily Report, Jerusalem Press, East Jerusalem, December 1, 1987, page 1.
2. Ibid., p. 5
3. Ibid., December 2, 1987, p. 1.
4. Ibid., p. 2.
5. Ibid., p. 3.
6. Ibid., December 3, 1987, p. 1.
7. Ibid., p. 2.
8. Ibid., December 9, 1987, p. 2.
9. Ibid., p. 2.
10. Ibid., December 13, 1987, p. 1.
11. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
12. Ibid., p. 7.
13. Ibid., December 16, 1987, p. 3.
14. Ibid., p. 4.
15. Ibid., p. 5.
16. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
17. lbid., p. 6.
18. Ibid., p. 7.
19. Ibid., p. 9.
20. Ibid., p. 9.
21. Ibid., p. 8.
22. Ibid., p. 8.
23. December 17, 1987, p.1
24. Ibid., p. 4.
25. Ibid., p. 5.
26. Ibid., pp. 5-8.
27. Ibid., p. 9.
28. Ibid., December 18, 1987, p. 1.
29. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
30. Ibid., December 22, 1987, p. 1.
31. Ibid., p. 1
32. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
33. Ibid., pp. 2-4.
34. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
35. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
36. Ibid., p. 6.
37. Ibid., p. 7.
38. Ibid., December 24, 1987.
39. Ibid., p. I.
40. Ibid., January 4, 1988, p. 1.
41. Ibid., p. 2.
42. Ibid., p. 3.
43. Ibid., p. 4.
44. Ibid., January 5, 1988, p. I .
45. Ibid., January 1 2, 1988, pp. 1-2.
46. Ibid., p. 3.
47. Ibid., p. 5.
48. Ibid., January 13, 1988, pp. 1-2.
49. Ibid., January 15, 1988, pp. 1-2.
50. Ibid., p. I.
51. Ibid., p. 4.
52. Ibid., January 19, 1988, p. 1.
53. Ibid., p. 2.
54. Ibid., p. 3.
55. Ibid.,p.4.
56. Ibid., January 22, 1988. pp. 1-2.
57. Ibid., p. 2.
58. Ibid., January 21, 1988, p. I.
59. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
60. Ibid., p. 8.
61. Ibid., January 25,1988, pp. 1-3.
62. Ibid., January 26, 1988, p. 1.
63. Ibid., p. 2.
64. Ibid., p. 2.
65. Ibid., p. 3.
66. Ibid., p. 4.
67. Ibid., p. 4.
68. Ibid., p. 5.
69. Ibid., January 27, 1988, p. 1.
70. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
71. Ibid., p. 2.
72. Ibid., p. 2.
73. Ibid., p. 3.
74. Ibid., p. ?.
75. Ibid., p. 7.
76. Ibid., January 28, 1988, p. 1.
77. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
78. Ibid., p. 3.
79. Ibid., p. 4.
80. Ibid., p. 6.
81. Ibid., January 29, 1988, p. 1.
82. Ibid., p. 2.
83. February 1, 1988, p. 2.
84. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
85. February 2, 1988, p. 1.
86. Ibid., pp. 2-4.
87. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
88. Ibid., p. 8.
89. Ibid., February 3,1988, pp. 1-2.
90. Ibid., p. 3
91. Ibid., p.4.
92. Ibid., p. 8.
93. Ibid., February 4, 1988, p. 1.
94. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
95. Ibid., p. 5.
96. Ibid., February 5, 1988, pp. 1-3.
97. Ibid.. pp. 4-5.
98. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
99. Ibid., February 8, 1988, p. 1.
100. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
101. Ibid., p. 4.
102. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
103. Ibid., February 9, 1988, pp. 1-4.
104. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
105. Ibid., February 10, 1988, p. 1.
106. Ibid., pp. 2-7.
107. Ibid.,February 12, 1988, pp. 1-4.
108. Ibid., February 16, 1988, pp. 1 -4.
109. Ibid., February 17,1988, pp. 1-2.
110. Ibid., p. 4.
111. Ibid., p. 4.
112. Ibid., p. 4.
113. Ibid,, pp. 5-6.
114. Ibid., February 18, 1988, pp. 1-5.
115. Ibid., February 19, 1988, pp. 1-6.
116. Ibid.. pp. 6-7.
117. Ibid., February 22, 1988, pp. 1-4.
118. Ibid., p. 8.
119. Ibid., February 23, 1988, pp. 1-5.
120. Ibid., February 24, 1988, p. 1.
121. Ibid., Ibid.,pp. 1-2.
122. Ibid., February 25, 1988, pp. 1-3.
123. Ibid., p. 2.
124. Ibid., p. 3.
125. Ibid., p. 9.
126. Ibid., February 26, 1988, p. 1.
127. Ibid., p. 3.
128. lbid., p. 4.
129. Ibid., February 29, 1988, p. I.
130. Ibid., pp. 1-3.
131. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
132. Ibid., March 1, 1988, p. 1.
133. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
134. Ibid., p. 4.
135. Ibid., p. 6.
136. Ibid., March 2,1988, pp. 1-2.
137. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
138. Ibid., p. 6.
139. Ibid,, March 3, 1988, pp. 1-4.
140. Ibid., p. 5.
141. Ibid., March 4, 1988, p. I.
142. Ibid., p. 3.
143. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
144. Ibid., p. 4.
145. Ibid., March 7, 1988, p. 1.
146. Ibid., p. 2.
147. Ibid., p. 2.
148. Ibid., p. 3.
149. Ibid., p. 9.
150. Ibid., March 8, 1988. pp. 1-6.
151. Ibid., March 9, 1988, pp. 1-5.
152. Ibid., p. 5.
153. Ibid., p. 6.
154. Ibid., March 14, 1988, p. 1.
155. Ibid., pp. 1-4.
156. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
157. lbid., p. 4.
158. Ibid., March 15, 1988, p. 1.
159. lbid., p. 2.
160. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
161. lbid., March 17, 1988,p. 1.
162. Ibid., p. I.
163. Ibid., pp. 2-7.
164. March 18, 1988.pp. I-2.
165. Ibid., pp. 1-4.
166. March 22. I9S8. p. I.
167. Ibid. March 23, 1988, p. 1.
168. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
169. Ibid., pp. 1-5.
170. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
171. Ibid., March 29, 1988, p. I.
172. lbid., p. 2.
173. lbid., p. 4.
174. Ibid., March 30, 1988, p. 1.
175. Ibid., April 4, 1988, p. 3.
176. lbid., p. 2.
177. lbid., p. 1.
178. lbid., p. 3.
179. lbid., p. 4.
180. Ibid., p. 5.
181. Ibid., p. 2.
182. Ibid., p. 1.
183. lbid., p. 4.
184. Ibid., p. 4.
185. Ibid., April 5, 1988, p. 3.
186. Ibid., p. 2.
187. Ibid., p. 1.
188. Ibid., p. I.
189. Ibid., April 6, 1988, p. 1.
190. Ibid., p. 4.
191. Ibid., p. 6.
192. Ibid., p. 6.
193. Ibid., April 18, 1988, pp. 1-2.
194. Ibid., p. 2.
195. Ibid., p. 3.
196. Ibid., April 11, 1988, p. 2.
197. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
198. Ibid., p. 2.
199. Ibid., p. 2.
200. lbid., April 12, 1988, p. 2.
201. Ibid., p. 3.
202. Ibid., p. 2.
203. Ibid., p. 1.
204. Ibid., p. I .
205. Ibid., April 13, 1988, p. 8.
206. Ibid., pp. 1-3.
207. Ibid., p. 7.
208. Ibid., April 15, 1988, p. 1.
209. Ibid., p. 1.
210. Ibid. p. 1.
211. Ibid., April 19, 1988, p. 3.
212. Ibid., April 20, 1988, p. 5.
213. Ibid., p. 6.
214. Ibid., pp. 2-4.
215. Ibid., April 21, 1988, p. 3.
216. Ibid., p. 1.
217. Ibid., April 27, 1988, p. 1.
218. Ibid., p. 7.
219. Ibid., April 29, 1988, p. 2.
220. Ibid., May 3, 1988, p. 3.
221. Ibid., May 5, 1988, p. 3.
222. Ibid., May 6, 1988, p. I.
223. Ibid. p. I.
224, Ibid., May 12, 1988. p. 3.
225, Ibid., May 13, 1988, p. 1.
226. Ibid., May 23, 1988, p. 3.
227. Ibid.. p. 3.
228. Ibid., p. 3.
229. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
230. Ibid., p. 1. 274. Ibid., p. 3.
231. Ibid., May 24, 1988, pp. 4-5.
232. Ibid., May 25, 1988, p. 2.
233. Ibid., May 26, 1988, p. 4.
234. Ibid., May 27, 1988, p. 1.
235. Ibid., p. 4. 279. Ibid., p. 3.
236. Ibid., p. 3.
237. Ibid., June 1, 1988, p. 3.
238. Ibid., June 3, 1988, p. 4.
239. Ibid., p. 3.
240. Ibid., June 6, 1988, p. 3.
241. Ibid., June 7, 1988, p. 3.
242. Ibid., June 8, 1988, p. 3.
243. Ibid., June 9, 1988, p. 1.
243. Ibid., June 9, 1988, p. 4.
244. Ibid., June 14, 1988, p. 4.
245. Ibid., June 20, 1988, p. 5.
246. Ibid., p. 4.
247. Ibid., p. 5.
248. Ibid., p. 5.
249. Ibid., p. 3.
250. Ibid., June 22, 1988, pp. 1-2.
251. Ibid., p. 6.
252. Ibid., June 23, 1988, p. 1.
253. Ibid., June 25, 1988, pp. 2-3.
254. Ibid., p. 3.
255. Ibid., p. 3.
256. Ibid., June 27, 1988, p. 2.
257. Ibid., June 28, 1988, p. 2.
258. Ibid., p. 4,
259. Ibid., p. 4.
260. Ibid., June 29, 1988, p. 3.
261. Ibid., p. 2.
262. Ibid., June 30, 1988, p. 2.
263. Ibid., July 1, 1988. p. 2.
264. Ibid., July 5, 1988, p. 2.
265. Ibid., p. 2
266. Ibid., p. 3.
267. Ibid., p. 1.
268. Ibid, July 6, 1988, p. 1.
269. Ibid., p. 1.
270. Ibid., July 7, 1988, p. 2.
271. Ibid., p. 1.
272. Ibid., July 8, 1988, p. 1.
273. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
276. Ibid., p. 4.
275. Ibid., p. 4.
277. Ibid., July 11, 1988, p. 1.
278. Ibid., p. 3.
280. Ibid., July 13, 1988, p. 1.
281. Ibid., July 14, 1988, p. 1.
282. Ibid., p. 3, 1988.
283. Ibid., p. 3.
284. Ibid., July 15, 1988, p. 1.
285. Ibid, p. 1.
286. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
287. Ibid., p. 4.
288. Ibid., p. 1.
289. Ibid., p. 1.
290. Ibid., July 19, 1988, pp. 1-2.
291. lhid., p. 3.
292. Ibid., p. 3.
293. Ibid., July 20, 1988, p. 1.
294. Ibid., p. 1.
295. Ibid., p. 1.
295. Ibid., p. 1.
296. Ibid., p. 1.
297. Ibid., p. 4.
298. Ibid., p. 5.
299. Ibid., July 21, 1988, p. 1.
300. Ibid., July 22, 1988, p. 2.
301. lhid., p. 3.
302. Ibid., p. 5.
303. Ibid., July 25, 1988, p. 1.
304. Ibid., p. 1.
305. Ibid July 27, 1988, p. 1.
306. Ibid., p. 3-4.
307. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
308. Ibid., July 28, 1988, p. l./ep.
309. Ibid., July 29, 1988, p. 1.
310. Ibid., p. 1.
311. Ibid.,p. 3.
312. The Cost of Freedom: Palestinian Human Rights under Israeli Occupation, (Chicago, Ill.: The Database Project on Palestinian Human Rights, 1989), p. 5.
313. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
314, Ibid., p. 20.
315. Ibid., p. 21.
316. Ibid., pp. 32-33.
317. Ibid., p. 40.
318. Ibid., pp. 49-50.
319. Daily Report, Jerusalem Press, East Jerusalem, April 20, 1989, p. 6.
320. Ibid., Januar 4, 1989, p. 1.
321. Ibid., April 11, 1989, p. 1.
322. Ibid., April 25, 1989, pp. 6-7.
323. Ibid., April 19, 1989, p. 9.
324. Ibid., May 19, 1989, p. 7.
325. Ibid., May 2, 1989, p. 2.
326. Ibid., May 19, 1989, p. 5.
327. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1949), volume 2, pp. 94-95.
328. The New York Times, July 9, 1989, p. E27

Go to part 7