Physicians for Human Rights-Israel: At Israel's Will - The Permit Policy in the West Bank - September 2003

8/8/2019 Physicians for Human Rights-Israel: At Israel's Will - The Permit Policy in the West Bank - September 2003

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/physicians-for-human-rights-israel-at-israels-will-the-permit-policy 1/19

1111

At Israel's Will: The Permit Policy in the West Bank

Policy Paper - Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Author: Hadas Ziv

Research: Ibrahim Habib, Salah Haj-Yehya, Miri Weingarten, Hadas Ziv

September 2003

Two roads in the West Bank: on the right a rickety and blocked Palestinian road, and on

the left a settler road. Photographs by: Shmuel Golan and Shabtai Gold (right to left).



2 22 2

She pushed the familiar forms towards him. 'Fill in the forms and take them to E-5. Have

your tickets and reservation slips with you.' She glanced over K's shoulder to the man behind him.'Yes?'

'No,' said K, struggling to regain her attention, 'I already applied for the permit. All I want

to know is, has the permit come?'

'Before you can have a permit you must have a reservation! Have you got a reservation?When is it for?'

'August eighteenth. But my mother–'

'August eighteenth is a month away! If you applied for a permit and the permit is granted,the permit will come, the permit will be sent to your address! Next!'

'But that is what I want to know! Because if the permit isn't going to come I must make

other plans. My mother is sick-'

The policewoman slapped the counter to still him. 'Don't waste my time. I am telling you

for the last time, if the permit is granted the permit will come…'

J. M. COETZEE , 'Life & Times of Michael K'



3 33 3

A Short History of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories – Restrictions on

Freedom of Movement

1967: Israel occupies the Sinai peninsula, the Gaza strip, the West Bank (including East

Jerusalem) and the Golan heights and establishes military rule in the West Bank and Gaza

Strip. A first Jewish settlement is founded in Kfar Etzion. East Jerusalem is annexed to

Israel.

1973-5: Gush Emmunim, the Jewish settlers' movement, leads a campaign to found

settlements in the Nablus region, culminating in an agreement with Defense Minister

Shimon Peres, whereby the settlers are allowed to reside in the military camp at Kadum.Two years later this outpost becomes the settlement Kedumim.

1981: The Israeli "Civil Administration" is established in order to address the civil affairs

of the Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories.

December 1987: Intifada breaks out. The Israeli security apparatus employs short-term

curfews as a means to control the uprising.

1991: In January, during the Gulf War, Israel imposes a protracted general curfew in

extensive areas of the Occupied Territories. In the same month the general permission to

enter Israel is cancelled and residents of the Occupied Territories are requested to procure

exit permits in order to enter Israel. This policy, termed "general closure", involves the

separation of the Occupied Territories from Israel. A system of staffed army checkpoints

is erected at crossing points. After the end of the Gulf War Palestinians and Israelis meet

at the Madrid Summit.

1993: In March a general closure is imposed on all the Occupied Territories following

several knifing attacks in Israel. Movement between the northern and southern parts of

the West Bank, and between the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is

severely restricted. Persons allowed to move do so subject to the issuing of a permit by

the Israeli Civil Administration.

1996: "Internal closure" is imposed for the first time in the Occupied Territories,

following the events of the "Hasmoneans Tunnel": Restrictions on movement between

villages and regions within the Occupied Territories themselves are added to the general

prohibition on entering Israel.



4 44 4

1998: Internal closure is imposed on Hebron preventing passage of Palestinian residents

between the two parts of the city.

2000: Following the outbreak of violence in September 2000 all restrictions previously

employed – general closure, internal closure and curfew – are employed with increased

severity throughout the Occupied Territories. Beyond increased restrictions in each of

these components, the Israeli policy now add systematic physical blockage of routes and

residential areas within the Occupied Territories, in the form of unstaffed physical

barriers. In parallel, a bureaucratic mechanism, termed "blockade permits" (Heb. Heiter

Be-Keter ) is put into practice: Palestinian residents are obliged to apply in person for

permits to the Israeli Civil Administration in order to be allowed to move betweenvillages and towns within the Occupied Territories.

After denying passage of Palestinians into Israel and reserving the right to deny passage

between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and between both regions and East Jerusalem

or other countries, Israel now erected checkpoints and barriers within the West Bank and

the Gaza Strip. These checkpoints divide each area into several 'geographical cells', and

constitute part of the policy of fragmentation implemented by the state of Israel with

regard to the Occupied Territories and their Palestinian residents. The West Bank is

dissected into northern and southern blocs (with Jerusalem and its environs in between),

and is additionally divided into regions according to city-governorates: Jenin, Nablus,

Ramallah, Salfeet, Jericho, Tul Karm, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Hebron. Each region is in

turn divided into sub-regions, which may at times constitute a single village, isolated

from all other villages and towns in its vicinity. The Gaza Strip is dissected by the Gush

Kattif checkpoint into two blocs: the southern bloc, including Rafah and Khan Younis –

which in turn includes the completely isolated Mawasi area – and the northern bloc,

which includes Deir Al-Balah, Gaza and Jabalia. At times the Gaza Strip is divided into

three regions by blocking Salah a-Din street, next to the settlement Netzarim. In such

cases the residents of Deir al Blah are obliged to reach Gaza via the coast – which is also

blocked at times.

In addition, Israel is in the process of constructing a complex of fences and barriers,

known in Israel as "the separation fence" and in the Occupied Territories as "the wall".



5 5

This system is located east of the 1967 borders and within the Occupied Territories. The

declared objective of this complex is to constitute a physical obstacle preventing entry of

Palestinians into Israel. However, the route of the fence, determined with a view to

including as many settlements as possible on its western side, forms isolated Palestinian

enclaves within the West Bank. For example, the city of Qalqilya is completely

surrounded by a wall, with only one gate in the northeast. Passage via this gate is also

controlled by the Israeli military. In the area of Baqa a-Sharqiya and Nazlat Issa two

parallel fences have been erected, one on the 1967 border and the other east of it. As a

result, several Palestinian villages are trapped between the two fences.

Israel's increased control of all passages and routes within the Occupied Territories,together with the immense financial investment in the construction of the barrier complex

lead us to the assumption that these are not temporary measures, but aim to

perpetuate a policy of 'separation with control'. These physical measures are

accompanied by the bureaucratic mechanism of "blockade permits", which grant

Palestinian residents the "right" to move from one specific location to another within the

Occupied Territories, or in other words the freedom to move within a "geographical cell"

defined by the Israeli Civil Administration.

This paper will provide a general description of the restrictions and their consequences.

However, we will focus specifically on the bureaucratic aspects of the permits policy

within the West Bank, rather than on the physical barriers. This is because the permits

system gives a false sense of leniency or humanity to what is essentially an oppressive

policy. It is important to remember that the permits system is not a relief within the

general context of the closures policy, but the very means whereby that policy can

continue to exist.

Introduction

This policy paper deals with the permits policy within the West Bank (or "blockade

permits", as defined by the Israeli army). As a starting point it should be noted that the

name itself is misleading, since the need for a permit occurs where there is a prohibition.

Our discussion should first question the legitimacy of restrictions on movement within

the West Bank. Israeli-issued permits are an essential and central component of this



6 66 6

policy. To a great extent, these permits and the readiness of many sectors in Palestinian

society to request them are the strongest evidence for the depth of oppression that

Palestinian society experiences, and for the internalization of this oppression.

Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement violate all areas of life. Farmers can’t reach

their lands and sell products, disposal vehicles can’t clear the garbage, doctors can’t reach

their clinics, and vaccination cars are unable to reach the villages. With no freedom of

movement teachers and pupils can’t attend schools and universities regularly, employees

are absent from work and people can’t visit their relatives. In spite of the fact that PHR-

Israel focuses on the struggle to ensure free passage for all medical teams, ambulancesand patients between towns and villages in the West Bank, it is clear to all that just as it is

impossible to maintain a logical and reasonable medical system with no freedom of

movement and sharing of resources, in the same manner maintenance of an economic

system, an educational system and family life are equally impossible. In fact – it is

impossible to live with these restrictions.

The state of Israel is entitled to restrict entrance to its territory (although here too, we

think that there are some commitments towards the Palestinian population for which

Israel is responsible). However, it has no right to erect roadblocks and prevent the

freedom of movement of Palestinian residents to and from their own cities and villages.

The policy of prevention of freedom of movement within the West Bank has created

economic paralysis and the gradual disintegration of the daily life-patterns of

Palestinians. The security consideration cited to justify this policy would seem to be

merely a pretext for a system of humiliation and violation of human rights, since there is

no doubt that a healthy person smuggling explosives with harmful intentions can cross

ditches and mountains and will not bother to apply for a permit or pass through a

checkpoint, whereas these same obstacles prevent the movement of the weak, the elderly,

the disabled and the sick. In implementing this policy the state of Israel deviates from the

balance it claims to maintain, between its needs for security and the humanitarian needs

of the Palestinians.



7 77 7

In addition, while Israel invests considerable efforts – budgetary and others – in order to

enable freedom of movement for its Jewish citizens in the occupied territories (building

by-pass roads, blocking Palestinian roads), it encloses and blocks the Palestinians. This

fact indicates that the policy of Israel in the occupied territories is based on severe

discrimination between the Jewish residents of the occupying state and the Palestinians in

the occupied territories. In this way Israel is doubly unjust: not only is it violating the

norms of the Geneva Convention, according to which the occupying power is prohibited

from transferring members of its own civilian population to the territories it has occupied,

but it has turned this transfer into the main reason for restricting the freedom of

movement of the Palestinian residents of the occupied territories and for violating theirrights.

In our opinion the occupation itself constitutes a severe violation of a variety of human

rights. But since the state of Israel claims that it is possible to maintain the occupation

with integrity, it should enable all residents of the occupied territories – Palestinian and

Jewish alike – equal freedom of movement. We must emphasize that any criticism

appearing in this report on the efficiency of the permits system them does not imply that

we accept the permits policy in any way, but is intended to demonstrate that the permits

were never planned to provide practical relief but to serve as a fig leaf for a policy of

paralysis.

Freedom of Movement and Health

It is evident, that the realization of the right to health is influenced by many factors:

housing, nutrition, waste disposal and sewage systems, financial income, access to

potable water and electricity, and access to medical facilities. All these factors are

influenced by the occupation, besides the direct impact of the armed conflict on the

health of Palestinian residents.

Since September 2000 the restriction Israel has imposed on Freedom of Movement have

caused grave damage to the ability of the Palestinian health system to function. Every

health system functions based on the assumption that there is free passage of patients,

doctors and relief teams. Efficient management of health services entails distribution of



8 88 8

functions among different units, which specialize in different fields. Modern health

management aims to specialization of specific units in specific services. If it were not so

each medical center would be obliged to provide all medical services available in that

country. Such a reality would not be feasible, and it is clear that sharing of specialized

facilities, and referral from one unit to another, is an efficient and necessary system. This

is the case in Israel and in any other balanced health system. Prevention of passage of

civilians between different centers of population undermines this assumption. The

permits system cannot solve the problem, since it involves procedures which are so

protracted as to paralyze the passage of patients, personnel, medicines and expertise.

For example, a West Bank doctor who is works at a hospital in East Jerusalem and possesses a permit for entry into Israel for this purpose was requested to provide expert

advice at a hospital in the city of Nablus in the West Bank. When he reached Hawarra

checkpoint at the southern outskirts of Nablus he was told that the permit he holds is only

valid for entry into Jerusalem. If he want to enter Nablus, said the Civil Administration,

he must apply for a "blockade permit" to enter Nablus. All our claims to the effect that if

he was found eligible for entry into Israel there was no logic in denying his entry into

Nablus were in vain, and the doctor was obliged to return.

Israel's policy – Doors in the Wall

First signs of the permits policy within the West Bank were apparent as early as the end

of 1996. At that time the Palestinian Authority, including its health system, refused to

apply for permits to move within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. PHR-Israel

demanded that the IDF stop this requirement since it was a severe infringement of the

Oslo Peace Accords, according to which the occupied territories should be a single

territorial unit and its contiguity should be preserved.1 However, today the Palestinian

Authority lacks the resources and the power to lead resistance to the permits policy under

1“In order to maintain the territorial integrity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial

unit, and to promote their economic growth and the demographic and geographical links between them,

both sides shall implement the provisions of this Annex, while respecting and preserving without obstacles,

normal and smooth movement of people, vehicles, and goods within the West Bank, and between the WestBank and the Gaza Strip”. Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,

Washington, D.C., September 28, 1995



9 99 9

closure. A Palestinian source informed us2

that, in July 2003, the Palestinian Minister for

Civil Affairs, Jamil Tarifi, issued instructions to the Palestinian District Coordination

Offices (DCOs) to apply to the Israeli DCOs for "blockade permits", for the first time

after a long period during which they abstained from applying for these requests. This

instruction came as a result of the suffering caused to the sick by not applying for these

permits and the enormous damage caused to the commercial and economic sectors. As a

result of the instruction many sectors can now apply for permits via the Palestinian

DCOs: Palestinian Government officials, tradesmen, doctors, patients, etc. The same

source explained that the large numbers of people begging the Palestinian administration

for permits for various reasons (medical, financial, etc.) has forced the PalestinianGovernment to act against its own principle, according to which movement within the

occupied territories should not be under Israeli control.

Israel's policy and intentions can be demonstrated via its attitude to the separation barrier

complex currently being built within the occupied territories, east of the Green Line. The

barrier and the budgetary investments allocated to it demonstrate that Israel's ultimate

objective is not temporary separation of geographical cells, but permanent

fragmentation of the occupied territories. When Palestinian residents complained that

the barrier would separate them from their farmland and the sources of water they depend

on, the Israel army's response was that it would establish gateways at various points along

the barrier. The official site of the fence/wall www.seamzone.mod.gov.il states that

“along the barrier various types of crossing points will be posted to enable the

functioning of normal life in a controlled crossing including tens of checkpoints to allow

the movement of the farmers”. In other words, what was open will be closed, and in the

place that was closed checkpoints will be opened.

Israel's policy – which determines the policy and conduct of the security forces – was

presented to PHR-Israel in response to various complaints and High Court petitions filed

on the subject of freedom of movement within the occupied territories. The details of this

policy change from time to time, but the principle remains the same: The movement of

2From a talk with Salah Haj –Yehya from PHR-Israel on 11

thAugust 2003.



10 10 10 10

Palestinian residents in the occupied territories is prohibited, as a rule; exceptions are

ceded to people who procure permits. In some cases, and at some checkpoints, passage of

women and specific age groups is permitted for specific periods of time even without

permits.

As a rule, Palestinian residents who wish to procure a "blockade permit" may apply to the

Palestinian or Israeli DCOs.3

When applying via the Palestinian DCO the resident applies

to the Palestinian DCO, which delivers the application to the Israeli DCO. The Israeli

DCO then delivers the answer to the Palestinian DCO which in turn will deliver it to the

resident. This process occurs today mainly when the resident cannot approach the IsraeliDCO directly, for any reason.

In every application the resident must submit documents that support the request for the

permit. Doctors, patients, teachers – all must apply. The policy is clear: As a rule the

movement of Palestinians is prohibited and the expectation is that they will lead their

lives in restricted “geographical cells”. Movement outside these "cells" becomes an

exception requiring special permission. In this atmosphere, “less important" daily needs,

such as traveling to visit family members, or an excursion, are not accepted as sufficient

reason for providing a permit. Even people with demonstrable justification must face

exhausting bureaucratic procedures, at the end of which the permit may or may not be

issued.

3In the West Bank there are 8 Israeli district coordinating offices: Nablus District – Hawarra DCO: access

to both Israeli and Palestinian DCOs in this district is subject to the approval of soldiers at variouscheckpoints on the way. Tulkarem district – The Israeli DCO is located at a place that is accessible to the

town's residents (near Kaduri school). Qalqilya district – The Israeli DCO is located in Kedumim

settlement, outside the walls surrounding the town. Palestinian vehicles are not allowed to travel on the

main road leading from Qalqiliya's "fruit checkpoint" to Kedumim. Passage at this checkpoint is permitted

subject to showing the soldier documents indicating the reason for application. Ramalla district – The

Israeli DCO is located near the settlement of Beit El. Hebron district – The Israeli DCO is located on

Mount Manoach. Jericho district – The Israeli DCO is located next to the settlement of Vered Jericho.

Bethlehem district – the Israeli DCO is located on the road leading to the settlement bloc Gush Etzyon.

Jenin district – the Israeli DCO is located near the Salem checkpoint or in the army camp Dotan. It is

difficult to reach both places since earth ramps and iron gates block the roads. There are also two Israelirepresentative offices in the Jerusalem district, one in the Abu Dis neighborhood and the other at a-Ram

checkpoint.



11111111

Permit given by the civil administration permitting passage within the West bank

Abed Haruf, a one-year-old baby, the son of Saed Haruf from the village of Odelia in the

Nablus district, was hospitalized in Nablus for 5 days while suffering from anaemia. The

father wanted to visit his baby son and tried to reach Nablus, which is situated 7 Km

away from his village. Due to the closure he was obliged to pass via Hawara checkpoint

(south of Nablus) on his way. He was not allowed to cross into Nablus since he had no

permit. He applied to the Israeli DCO at Hawara for a permit, and was refused. Members



12 12 12 12

of the activist organization MachsomWatch ("Checkpoint Watch") who were present at

the time applied to PHR-Israel for aid. We applied in vain to the "humanitarian hotline"

run by the Israeli Civil Administration, and next tried to ascertain the case with the office

of the "health coordinator" of the Civil Administration. It transpired that Mr. Haruf was

officially denied passage within the West Bank, due to "security reasons". Although we

frequently meet "security refusals" when trying to coordinate passage of Palestinian

patients from the Occupied Territories to Israel or other countries, this was the first time

we received a formal refusal, following a bureaucratic procedure, to allow passage within

the Occupied Territories, and even within the district in which the applicant resides. The

official who gave us the answer verified that: “usually it does not happen that a personwho needs to travel from his village to the nearest town is deprived from doing so. This is

the first time I have encountered a case like this. Usually they succeed in entering [the

town] somehow”. His words demonstrate that the army is aware of the fact that even

today some people enter the towns without requesting a permit.

Ms. Dalia Bassa, the "Health Coordinator" for the Occupied Territories on behalf of the

Israeli Civil Administration, claimed that she was unfamiliar with the case after PHR-

Israel approached the media, in spite of the fact that the official in her office addressed

PHR-Israel's appeal. She then agreed to coordinate permission for the father to reach the

hospital, but on that same day the baby was discharged. Her office promised to ensure

that the father would be allowed to accompany his son to be examined in the hospital

several days later.

The response from the office of Brigadier General Yosef Mishlav, Coordinator of

Government Operations in the Territories, avoided addressing the issue of the absurdity

of demanding permits for movement between villages and adjacent towns: “As a rule, the

movement of residents between "blockade checkpoints" is permitted for humanitarian,

medical and other needs.” Since the baby was released from hospital, Lieutenant Colonel

Shlomi Muchtar did not find "grounds for the resident’s claim" and was content with the

claim that “the continuation of care and assistance for his son will be provided subject to

binding procedures” (16 July 2003, emphasis in the original).



13 13 13 13

In response to our complaint (February 9 2003) according to which medical teams and

sick people were unable to move in the Nablus area via Hawara checkpoint we received

the answer, that – even if the reason for requesting passage is “important enough” – it

could be granted only via an official permit:

“As a rule, checkpoints are erected in Judea and Samaria as security measures…. The

civil administration offices in Judea and Samaria operate daily in an intensive way in

order to allow Palestinian populations that are not involved in terrorism to conduct a

basic life pattern.

“…It should be emphasized that in emergency cases the passage of ambulances and

patients is allowed without permits. In addition, persons suffering from chronic diseasesare allowed to go out for daily medical treatments, based on the issuing of a "blockade

permit," which is subject to application by the patients and to presentation of medical

documents.

“…The "blockade permit" is designed to enable proper movement of residents and other

sectors such as medical workers and medical teams, in light of the complex security

situation.

“… With regard to individual cases mentioned in the organization's letter, no indication

was found in an investigation we conducted, for applications by the residents or their

representatives to the DCOs concerning their passage via Hawara checkpoint4.”

This letter clarifies that “uncoordinated and spontaneous” movement will be allowed – if

it is allowed – only in "emergency cases", whose definition changes periodically:

On 12 August, following bomb attacks in the settlement town of Ariel in the West Bank

and in the town of Rosh Ha'ayin in Israel, procedures for passage of ambulances in the

Nablus area were 'tightened'. An ambulance carrying a woman suffering from a

hemorrhage and her husband, a one-month-old baby with a heart defect and a man

scheduled for heart catheterization, was making its way to hospitals in Nablus. It was

denied passage via Sal'ous checkpoint. When the ambulance driver insisted upon entering

the city with the three patients the soldiers at the checkpoint threatened to shoot the

4Letter from Ruth Bar, Assistant to the Defense Minister, from March 26, 2003.



14 14 14 14

vehicle's tires. PHR-Israel applied to the "Humanitarian Hotline" run by the Israeli Civil

Administration, only to be told that “due to new instructions the checkpoints are

hermetically closed except for emergency humanitarian cases. Ambulances carrying a

patient who is not critically ill, and will not be caused irreversible harm will not be

allowed passage5." Only upon PHR-Israel's insistence were two of the patients permitted

to enter Nablus. The husband of the woman with the bleed and the catheterization

candidate were not allowed to enter and were returned to Tul Karem. PHR-Israel

complained against this policy, claiming that this sweeping prohibition contradicts

Israel's duty as an occupying power to ensure the movement of patients and doctors, and

that it is unacceptable for an entire medical system to run according to such extrememeasures, whereby patients are prevented from receiving medical care unless they are in

immediate danger of their lives.

The Villages Deir al Hatab, Salem and Azmut6

: The Way To a Permit Passes

Through the Checkpoint

The villages Azmut, Deir al Hatab and Salem are situated east of Nablus, on which they

depend for health, education, and economic livelihood. The villages have a population of

11,000 residents. The state of these villages shows in a clear way two circumstances in

which there is no possibility for residents to reach the Israeli DCO in order to apply for a

"blockade permit":

Access of these villages to the town of Nablus, a few hundred meters away, was only

possible by crossing the No. 57 road, running from north to south. However, all the roads

leading from the villages to this road were blocked by earth ramps which made it

impossible for the residents of these villages to reach the road. Moreover, parallel to the

road a trench was dug to prevent any possibility of a car crossing over. An additional

trench was dug northwest of the villages and filled with sewage, apparently in order to

5The Humanitarian Hotline in a telephone conversation with PHR-Israel on August 12, 2003.

6For more details on the state of these villages see: PHR-Israel: Blocked: report on a visit to the villages

Salem, Deir al Hatab and Azmut, 2.2.03



11115 5

block any possibility of crossing even on foot to and from Nablus. Due to these physical

obstacles patients were unable to leave the village or even to make contact with the

soldiers at the staffed checkpoints that were beyond these obstacles. Hence, they could

not even submit a request to go out for urgent medical treatment, education, bringing

food, or any other purpose.

PHR-Israel, together with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and residents of the

villages, filed a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice against these roadblocks. The

State Attorney confirmed in his answer that the passage of residents of the villages into

Nablus was in fact denied. As a result of the petition one of the trenches preventingaccess to Nablus was filled at a junction northwest of the villages (Askar), and in the

meantime a dirt track to a staffed checkpoint south of the villages (Beit Fourik) was

prepared, enabling physical access to Road 57 and from there to Nablus. The moment the

dirt track was completed, however, passage via the northwest route was once again

closed – this time by a locked iron gate. Today the residents are forced to reach Beit

Fourik checkpoint south of the villages and from there to take a taxi to Nablus. Direct

passage by vehicle is forbidden at all times.

In both cases – physical obstacles and staffed checkpoint – residents are in fact incapable

of freely reaching the Palestinian or Israeli DCOs. While physical obstacles were the

problem (from October 2002 to April 20037), residents were not able to leave the villages

in order to reach the Palestinian DCO located in Nablus, since the road was physically

blocked. Ever since access to a staffed checkpoint was enabled (from May 2003 to the

present), residents attempting to leave the villages via the iron gate at Askar junction are

directed by soldiers south to the Bet Fourik checkpoint, where they will have to

demonstrate to the soldier's satisfaction that he has a real and sufficient reason to go to

the Israeli DCO at Hawara checkpoint, located southwest of Beit Fourik checkpoint.

Even if he wants to submit the application to a Palestinian DCO office he will have to

convince the soldier to allow him to reach Nablus.

7In April 2003 a trench was filled at Askar/Azmout junction and soldiers were posted there until the

opening of a dirt track to Bet Fourik checkpoint south of the villages, following a High Court petition filed

by some village residents, PHR-Israel and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.



16 16 16 16

This situation is not exceptional. Similar difficulties are encountered throughout the West

Bank. For example the Palestinian residents of Hebron, and especially of Israeli

controlled Zone H2, undergo dangerous obstacles on their way to apply for permits at the

Israel DCO – on the other side of a bypass road to the south of the city, on Mount

Manoach. After passing physical obstacles, vehicles approaching the DCO may have

stones thrown at them or suffer other forms of violence from both settlers and soldiers.

All these details merely illustrate that this policy, which is morally untenable, is also

virtually impracticable. The Israeli High Court ruled not to interfere in the policy of the

security forces and in its considerations concerning the closure of the villages east of Nablus. However, in its statement, the Court added that in spite of the fact that "no cause

was found for [the Court] to say to the respondent that the acts it has performed deviate

from what is reasonable or appropriate”, yet “the respondent could have employed other

ways to protect life”8. In this the Court contradicts the State’s claim that the “closure and

these checkpoints were employed for clear security reasons and for lack of any other

alternative”. (our emphasis)

With no checks on Israeli society these villages and towns are imprisoned in a

stranglehold policy that precludes any possibility of economic and social recovery.

Gestures, or the random opening of a dirt track, will not help. What is needed is a

comprehensive change of policy:

“The humanitarian situation will significantly improve only through a total removal of

the closures. Gestures such as construction of an alternative road through another closed

village, or the establishment of a manned checkpoint which allows only limited traffic,

may alleviate certain elements of the crises but not the underlying causes and long-term

effects of the problem”. (UNOCHA report – add reference, date)

The "blockade permits" policy and procedures were designed in the days when internal

closure was an exceptional measure. Even then the decision of the security apparatus to

8 High Court Ruling, HCJ 2847/03.



17 17 17 17

restrict the movement of civilians, patients and medical personnel within their own

territories constituted a violation of the protection afforded to health facilities under

occupation. However, it is clear that when internal closure and curfew become

systematic, this violation becomes criminal, in that it causes a total paralysis of regular

daily life. The security apparatus itself is aware of the severity of the restrictions and

confesses that, when dealing with Palestinians, the declared aim of the security forces is

merely to ensure a “reasonable existence” and a “continuation of a life routine”. In

reality, these definitions obscure a reduction of this "life routine" to a bare minimum.

The IDF responds in “gestures”. Since we are not talking about normal life, the possibility to conduct a daily life at all is

perceived by the IDF as a “gesture”. The definition of the granting of permits as a gesture

on the part of the authorities and not as the fulfilling of a basic right, leaves all the power

in the hands of the “provider”. In this way, for example, on March 23, 2003 the IDF

expressed pride of the fact that they continue their policy of providing humanitarian aid

to Palestinian populations that are not involved in terrorism. For this purpose the Israeli

army grants benefits and relief to Palestinians in order to allow them to conduct a proper

life routine. Following is a list of relief measures, updated to March 1, 2003: “In Hebron

a Palestinian woman in labor was given permission to enter the hospital in town.

Transport of office equipment to the Ministry of Education in town was coordinated. In

Nablus 7 Red Cross lorries with food were allowed to enter … In the Gaza region

passage of a woman in labor was from Mawassi to Khan Yunis was coordinated. In

addition delivery of agriculture produce to Khan Yunis was coordinated… In Judea and

Samaria transfer of 18 patients to hospitals in Israel and abroad was coordinated. Three

patients were transferred to Maqassed Hospital [in East Jerusalem – PHR], Thirteen were

transferred to Augusta Victoria hospital [in East Jerusalem – PHR] and two patients were

transferred via Allenby crossing [into Jordan – PHR]. (http:

www.idf.il/newsite/Hebrew/0323).

Summary



18 18 18 18

It is difficult to talk about a reasonable existence, not to mention a fair existence, when a

population of 3.5 million depends upon "humanitarian gestures". It is becoming

progressively clearer to everyone dealing with the social and economic rights of

Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories that more than anything else, the internal

closure in all its various forms of blockade, curfew and permits is the main obstacle to the

recovery of Palestinian society and all its civilian structures:

World Bank: “The sine qua non of economic stability and recovery is the lifting of

closure in its various forms, and in particular internal closure. As long as Palestinian

internal economic space remains as fragmented as it is today, and as long as the economyremains subject to extreme unpredictability and burdensome transaction costs, the revival

of domestic economy and Palestinian welfare will continue to decay.” (WB xvii)

Moreover, the deepening and perpetuation of separation policies via creation of urban

enclaves hemmed in by fences, and their permanent isolation from areas which depend on

them for their living (e.g., the rural surroundings of the towns of Qalqilia and Tul Karem)

completely contradicts the public commitment of Israel and the international community

to the creation of a viable Palestinian state, in which territorial contiguity and freedom of

movement are ensured.

Recommendations

Palestinian and/or Israeli civil protest against the permits policy, although essential, is

unlikely in the current situation. It is even more unlikely that the Israeli government will

relinquish the use of the permits system as a fig leaf for its policy of separation with

control. We therefore urge the international community to totally reject the permits

policy in the Occupied Territories and to unequivocally demand freedom of movement

for all.

'You can't travel outside the Peninsula without a permit. Go to the checkpoint and showthem your permit and your papers. And listen to me: you want to stop on the expressway, you

pull fifty metres off the roadside. That's the regulation: fifty metres either side. Anything nearer,

you can get shot, no warning, no questions asked. Understand?'

J. M. COETZEE , 'Life & Times of Michael K'



19 19 19 19

Photo by: Palestine Red Crescent Society

Documents

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel: At Israel's Will - The Permit Policy in the West Bank - September 2003