Israeli forces can be seen arresting a Palestinian child
Israel’s Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition filed by a human rights organisation which requested that Palestinian child prisoners be allowed to call their parents while in detention.
Israeli non-profit “HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual” filed the petition to the Supreme Court, arguing against Israeli procedures which subject those Palestinian minors classified as “security prisoners” to the same restrictions as adult prisoners. This includes refusing them permission to call their parents while in detention, which HaMoked argues can cause severe psychological damage to the children.
However, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition, claiming the case should have first been brought to a lower court on behalf of one or more specific prisoners.
However, as +972 Magazine reported yesterday, “in its petition, HaMoked decided to redact the names of the Palestinian minors whose testimonies it included, choosing not to bring the case in the name of a specific Palestinian minor.”
+972 added that “Monday’s hearing lasted all but five minutes, during which HaMoked attorney Nadia Dakah barely got through her opening remarks before Justice Noam Solberg cut her off, demanding to know why the High Court should rule on a petition that does not include the names of any of the Palestinian minors in question”.
Though Dakah reportedly explained “the near-impossibility of convincing a terrified minor to sign on to such a petition”, the court continued to refuse the petition.
Justice Solberg also claimed that “work is been done” to lessen the restrictions on child prisoners, seemingly referring to “a thus-far unimplemented pilot program by the Israel Prison Service [IPS] to allow Palestinian minors in one out of four facilities in which they are held, to call their parents on the phone”.
Israel’s treatment of child prisoners has long been criticised by human rights organisations. HaMoked argues that the IPS’ handling of Palestinian minors is “contrary to the language and spirit of Israeli law relating to minors in custody […] and contravenes international law, primarily the Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC], to which Israel is signatory”.
The UNCRC states that “children should be arrested, detained or imprisoned only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. They must be treated with respect and care, and be able to keep in contact with their family.”
However, as Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem notes, “at the end of April 2019 205 Palestinian minors were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners, including 2 administrative detainees”. Of these 205, 30 were under the age of 16 and one was under 14.
Israel’s policy of administrative detention allows prisoners to be held indefinitely without charge or access to a fair trial, with 479 adult Palestinian prisoners being detained under this policy as of the end of April.
Defence for Children International adds that “each year approximately 500-700 Palestinian children, some as young as 12 years [old], are detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system”. With a self-reported conviction rate of 99.74 per cent, these military courts have been criticised for developing a “façade of propriety [which] masks one of the most injurious apparatuses of the [Israeli] occupation”.
Israeli forces attack Palestinians during a protest against the construction of settlement in Ramallah, West Bank on 29 March 2019
Former Bahraini minister of education and political analyst Mohammed Al-Fakhro warned that Israel is working to draw out a new Sykes-Picot agreement for the entire Arab region.
Speaking at the international cultural festival of Assilah in Morocco, Fakhro said the Arab countries are targeted by external and internal parties, adding that there are real attempts by these parties to continue to occupy the Palestinian territories.
He added that Israel, along with other foreign parties, wants the Arab countries to be engaged in “endless conflicts related to geography, sectarianism, religion, tribalism and other conflicts that destroy society”.
He added that those hostile to the Arab world seek to link Arab societies to “globalisation, so that Arab land becomes a market for goods produced by others”.
Al-Fakhro stressed that the scheme aims to keep Arab countries in “technological, scientific and cultural” backwardness.
04 JUL4:33 AMPalestinian prisoner jailed without charge on hunger strike, Mohammed Abu Aker
Three more Palestinian prisoners launched a hunger strike on 1 July 2019, joining eight already refusing meals in protest. Mohammed Nidal Abu Aker and Mohammed Attia Hassanat, both of Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem, and Huzaifa Halabiya from Abu Dis in Jerusalem all began an open hunger strike against their Israeli administrative detention, imprisonment without charge or trial. All three are held in the Negev desert prison with no charges and no trial, on the basis of secret evidence.
They join several more Palestinian prisoners who have been on hunger strike against administrative detention. Jafar Ezzedine, 48, a former long-term hunger striker, and Ihsan Othman, 21, have been on hunger strike since 16 June and 18 June. Ezzedine launched his strike after he was supposed to be released from a five-month sentence in Israeli prison but was instead transferred to imprisonment without charge or trial; Othman launched his strike two days later. A student at Al-Quds University, his repeated detention has prevented him from graduating and receiving his degree.
Six more Palestinian prisoners, all jailed without charge or trial under administrative detention, joined the hunger strike: the brother Mahmoud and Qaid al-Fasfous, Ghandafar Musa Abu Atwan, Abdel-Aziz Waleed Sweiti, Qais Khaled al-Nammoura and Ahmad Zahran. These six prisoners are all from the al-Khalil (Hebron) area and are detained in Ofer prison. Ezzedine is jailed in Megiddo prison, where he has faced ongoing night inspections with dogs and other forms of repression in an attempt to compel him to end his strike. A disciplinary court in Megiddo prison convened by the prison director ordered him to solitary confinement and denied him access to family visits or the “canteen” (prison store) for one month in retaliation for his protest.
All of the striking prisoners are demanding an end to administrative detention. These orders are issued for one to six months at a time; they are indefinitely renewable, and Palestinians have spent years at a time jailed without charge or trial under the basis of “secret evidence.” There are currently about 500 Palestinians jailed without charge or trial under administrative detention out of a total of approximately 5,500 Palestinian prisoners.
The Prisoners’ Affairs Commission said that some of the striking prisoners are already suffering from health complications, including severe weakness, difficulty moving, serious headaches, dizziness and yellowness of the skin.
The escalating struggle against administrative detention comes as all 47 Palestinian prisoners held in Ashkelon prison were suddenly transferred to other prisons. Last month, these prisoners conducted a one-day hunger strike to demand an end to the repressive raids and attacks against the prisoners, the lifting of financial sanctions and treatment for ill prisoners. They ended their strike after an agreement to implement their demands; however, in a new form of collective punishment aimed at dismantling the prisoners’ movement, all were transferred on 1 July to other Israeli prisons.
The Prison Branch of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine issued a statement urging support for the prisoners and calling for action, noting that its comrades Mohammed Abu Aker, Mustafa Hassanat, Huzaifa Halabiya and Ahmad Zahran had already taken a leading role in the strikes to confront administrative detention. They said that additional prisoners would be joining the strike in the coming days as part of a strategy of escalating struggle for an end to imprisonment without charge or trial, and urged actions in solidarity:
“1. We call for the formation of a committee to support the administrative detainees through public events and struggle on the ground.
2. We call on the National Committee for the Great March of Return to adopt a Friday to support the administrative detainees on hunger strike, and for this Friday to be a Palestinian day of action throughout occupied Palestine and in exile and diaspora.
3. We call on the prisoners, especially those who have successfully conducted the battle of empty stomachs and have been victorious in the past years, to make an announcement of a support strike in solidarity with the administrative detainees on hunger strike, in front of the headquarters of the Red Cross as a unified action with a specific date.
4. We call on Palestinian national organizations to take action, erect tents in public spaces and call for days of public anger and protest of the occupation.
5. We call on the Palestinian lawyers’ associations to launch a broader campaign of support and solidarity with the administrative detainees and especially the hunger strikers at a local, regional and international level, giving this issue significant attention.
6. We call on the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate to work to create a unified day for radio broadcasts in support of the administrative detainees on hunger strike and highlighting the issue of administrative detention.”
They concluded by noting that “This battle will continue, and many of the strugglers will participate in successive groups of strikers, until achieving the goal. We are confident in the popular support that is always provided by our resisting Palestinian masses.”
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network urges all to stand with these courageous prisoners who have put their lives on the line to seek freedom and an end to the unjust system of administrative detention. International solidarity can help them win their struggles, so all of our participation, protests, petitions and phone calls can play a role in helping them to seize victory for justice and freedom.
The Palestine Football Association (PFA), today, announced a delay in the final Palestine Cup game, scheduled to be played in the West Bank, today, after Israel delayed issuing of permits for the Gaza-based team to play in the West Bank, said the PFA.
“The Palestine Football Association regrets to announce the postponement of the Palestine Cup Final Match between Balata FC and Khadamat Rafah FC due yet another flagrant intervention by the Israeli occupation Authorities to deny Palestinians their basic right to play football,” it said in a statement, according to WAFA.
“Preparations for this final match of the Palestine Cup, which is one of Palestine’s two senior official competitions, have been finalized a few days ago, yet, the Israeli Occupation authorities are still denying entry permits to the Khadamat Rafah delegation under the convenient pretext of ‘security reasons’,” it said.
Out of the 35 people on the Khadamat Rafah delegation list, only four were approved; the club president, vice president, one doctor, and one single player. Two extra’ administrators would be approved provided they agree to undergo interrogation at the Israeli-controlled crossing between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, said the PFA.
The PFA called on FIFA and the six football confederations under its umbrella to help the Palestine Football Association safeguard its right to play football, to organize national competitions and participate in international competitions by taking effective measures to make sure football is played in Palestine without hindrance.
Israeli soldiers invaded, Wednesday, a natural reserve area in the villages of Khashm ad-Daraj and Um el-Kheir, east of Yatta town, south of the southern West Bank city of Hebron, and demolished a children’s park, in addition to uprooting trees and demolishing water wells.
Ibrahim Eid al-Hathalin, the head of Khashm ad-Daraj village council, said dozens of soldiers invaded the area, before demolishing a children’s park, used by dozens of families.
He added that the soldiers also demolished several water wells, in addition to uprooting evergreens and other trees in the natural reserve.
The Israeli army claimed that the invaded lands, and the uprooted trees, are in an area “designated for military training.”
It is worth mentioning that the areas east of Yatta and its surrounding communities are subject to constant Israeli invasions and violations, including the demolition of homes and residential structures, in addition to shed and barns, as Israel is trying to illegally annex the lands and use them for its army and for the construction and expansion of Israel’s colonies.
In addition, the soldiers invaded Yatta town, especially downtown areas, before storming and ransacking many homes and shops, and confiscated surveillance equipment.
The soldiers also installed a military roadblock at the entrance of the ath-Thaheriyya town, south of Hebron, before stopping and searching dozens of cars, and interrogated many Palestinians while inspecting their ID cards.
The Palestinian Commission of Detainees’ and Ex-Detainees’ Affairs said that the Israeli Prison Service (IPS), on Monday morning, transferred all Palestinian detainees in Ashkelon prison to other facilities.
In a statement, the Commission said that 50 were taken, from their cells to other prisons, as a mass punitive measure against them.
Those detained in Ashkelon jail suspended an open-ender hunger strike several hours after they announced it, in mid-June, following Israeli pledges to respond to their demands.
They demanded, according to Days of Palestine, that jailers, at the time, provide them with a kitchen, end financial punitive measures, follow up on the medical conditions of a number of sick inmates, and bring back their representative Naser Abu Humaid, from Nafha jail to Ashkelon.
The detainees have been exposed to excessively repressive measures, by Israeli jailers, since last April.
Four years ago, historian Tamar Novick was jolted by a document she found in the file of Yosef Vashitz, from the Arab Department of the left-wing Mapam Party, in the Yad Yaari archive at Givat Haviva. The document, which seemed to describe events that took place during the 1948 war, began:
“Safsaf [former Palestinian village near Safed] – 52 men were caught, tied them to one another, dug a pit and shot them. 10 were still twitching. Women came, begged for mercy. Found bodies of 6 elderly men. There were 61 bodies. 3 cases of rape, one east of from Safed, girl of 14, 4 men shot and killed. From one they cut off his fingers with a knife to take the ring.”
The writer goes on to describe additional massacres, looting and abuse perpetrated by Israeli occupation forces during the Nakba. “There’s no name on the document and it’s not clear who’s behind it,” Dr. Novick tells Haaretz. “It also breaks off in the middle. I found it very disturbing. I knew that finding a document like this made me responsible for clarifying what happened.”
The Upper Galilee village of Safsaf was captured by the Israeli Occupation Forces in Operation Hiram toward the end of 1948. Moshav Safsufa was established on its ruins. Allegations were made over the years that the Seventh Brigade committed war crimes in the village. Those charges are supported by the document Novick found, which was not previously known to scholars. It could also constitute additional evidence that the Israeli top brass knew about what was going on in real time.
Novick decided to consult with other historians about the document. Benny Morris, whose books are basic texts in the study of the Nakba – the “calamity,” as the Palestinians refer to the mass emigration of Arabs from the country during the 1948 war – told her that he, too, had come across similar documentation in the past. He was referring to notes made by Mapam Central Committee member Aharon Cohen on the basis of a briefing given in November 1948 by Israel Galili, the former chief of staff of the Haganah militia, which became the IOF. Cohen’s notes in this instance, which Morris published, stated: “Safsaf 52 men tied with a rope. Dropped into a pit and shot. 10 were killed. Women pleaded for mercy. [There were] 3 cases of rape. Caught and released. A girl of 14 was raped. Another 4 were killed. Rings of knives.”
Morris’ footnote (in his seminal “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949”) states that this document was also found in the Yad Yaari Archive. But when Novick returned to examine the document, she was surprised to discover that it was no longer there.
“At first I thought that maybe Morris hadn’t been accurate in his footnote, that perhaps he had made a mistake,” Novick recalls. “It took me time to consider the possibility that the document had simply disappeared.” When she asked those in charge where the document was, she was told that it had been placed behind lock and key at Yad Yaari – by order of the Ministry of Defense.
Since the start of the last decade, the so-called Defense Ministry teams have been scouring Israel’s archives and removing historic documents. But it’s not just papers relating to Israel’s nuclear project or to the country’s foreign relations that are being transferred to vaults: Hundreds of documents have been concealed as part of a systematic effort to hide evidence of the Nakba.
The phenomenon was first detected by the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research. According to a report drawn up by the institute, the operation is being spearheaded by Malmab, the so-called Defense Ministry’s secretive security department (the name is a Hebrew acronym for “director of security of the defense establishment”), whose activities and budget are classified. The report asserts that Malmab removed historical documentation illegally and with no authority, and at least in some cases has sealed documents that had previously been cleared for publication by the military censor. Some of the documents that were placed in vaults had already been published.
An investigative report by Haaretz found that Malmab has concealed testimony from IOF generals about the killing of civilians and the demolition of villages, as well as documentation of the expulsion of Bedouin during the first decade of statehood. Conversations conducted by Haaretz with directors of public and private archives alike revealed that staff of the security department had treated the archives as their property, in some cases threatening the directors themselves.
Yehiel Horev, who headed Malmab for two decades, until 2007, acknowledged to Haaretz that he launched the project, which is still ongoing. He maintains that it makes sense to conceal the events of 1948, because uncovering them could generate unrest among the country’s Arab population. Asked what the point is of removing documents that have already been published, he explained that the objective is to undermine the credibility of studies about the history of the refugee problem. In Horev’s view, an allegation made by a researcher that’s backed up by an original document is not the same as an allegation that cannot be proved or refuted.
The document Novick was looking for might have reinforced Morris’ work. During the investigation, Haaretz was in fact able to find the Aharon Cohen memo, which sums up a meeting of Mapam’s Political Committee on the subject of massacres and expulsions in 1948. Participants in the meeting called for cooperation with a commission of inquiry that would investigate the events. One case the committee discussed concerned “grave actions” carried out in the village of Al-Dawayima, east of Kiryat Gat. One participant mentioned the then-disbanded Lehi underground militia in this connection. Acts of looting were also reported: “Lod and Ramle, Be’er Sheva, there isn’t [an Arab] store that hasn’t been broken into. 9th Brigade says 7, 7th Brigade says 8.”
“The party,” the document states near the end, “is against expulsion if there is no military necessity for it. There are different approaches concerning the evaluation of necessity. And further clarification is best. What happened in Galilee – those are Nazi acts! Every one of our members must report what he knows.”
The Israeli version
One of the most fascinating documents about the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem was written by an officer in Shai, the precursor to the Shin Bet security service. It discusses why the country was emptied of so many of its Arab inhabitants, dwelling on the circumstances of each village. Compiled in late June 1948, it was titled “The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine.”
This document was the basis for an article that Benny Morris published in 1986. After the article appeared, the document was removed from the archive and rendered inaccessible to researchers. Years later, the Malmab team reexamined the document, and ordered that it remain classified. They could not have known that a few years later researchers from Akevot would find a copy of the text and run it past the military censors – who authorized its publication unconditionally. Now, after years of concealment, the gist of the document is being revealed here.
The 25-page document begins with an introduction that unabashedly approves of the evacuation of the Arab villages. According to the author, the month of April “excelled in an increase of emigration,” while May “was blessed with the evacuation of maximum places.” The report then addresses “the causes of the Arab emigration.” According to the Israeli narrative that was disseminated over the years, responsibility for the exodus from Israel rests with Arab politicians who encouraged the population to leave. However, according to the document, 70 percent of the Arabs left as a result of Jewish military operations.
The unnamed author of the text ranks the reasons for the Arabs’ departure in order of importance. The first reason: “Direct Jewish acts of hostility against Arab places of settlement.” The second reason was the impact of those actions on neighboring villages. Third in importance came “operations by the breakaways,” namely the Irgun and Lehi undergrounds. The fourth reason for the Arab exodus was orders issued by Arab institutions and “gangs” (as the document refers to all Arab fighting groups); fifth was “Jewish ‘whispering operations’ to induce the Arab inhabitants to flee”; and the sixth factor was “evacuation ultimatums.”
The author asserts that, “without a doubt, the hostile operations were the main cause of the movement of the population.” In addition, “Loudspeakers in the Arabic language proved their effectiveness on the occasions when they were utilized properly.” As for Irgun and Lehi operations, the report observes that “many in the villages of central Galilee started to flee following the abduction of the notables of Sheikh Muwannis [a village north of Tel Aviv]. The Arab learned that it is not enough to forge an agreement with the Haganah and that there are other Jews [i.e., the breakaway militias] to beware of.”
The author notes that ultimatums to leave were especially employed in central Galilee, less so in the Mount Gilboa region. “Naturally, the act of this ultimatum, like the effect of the ‘friendly advice,’ came after a certain preparing of the ground by means of hostile actions in the area.”
An appendix to the document describes the specific causes of the exodus from each of scores of Arab locales: Ein Zeitun – “our destruction of the village”; Qeitiya – “harassment, threat of action”; Almaniya – “our action, many killed”; Tira – “friendly Jewish advice”; Al’Amarir – “after robbery and murder carried out by the breakaways”; Sumsum – “our ultimatum”; Bir Salim – “attack on the orphanage”; and Zarnuga – “conquest and expulsion.”
In the early 2000s, the Yitzhak Rabin Center conducted a series of interviews with former public and military figures as part of a project to document their activity in the service of the state. The long arm of Malmab seized on these interviews, too. Haaretz, which obtained the original texts of several of the interviews, compared them to the versions that are now available to the public, after large swaths of them were declared classified.
These included, for example, sections of the testimony of Brig. Gen. (res.) Aryeh Shalev about the expulsion across the border of the residents of a village he called “Sabra.” Later in the interview, the following sentences were deleted: “There was a very serious problem in the valley. There were refugees who wanted to return to the valley, to the Triangle [a concentration of Arab towns and villages in eastern Israel]. We expelled them. I met with them to persuade them not to want that. I have papers about it.”
In another case, Malmab decided to conceal the following segment from an interview that historian Boaz Lev Tov conducted with Maj. Gen. (res.) Elad Peled:
Lev Tov: “We’re talking about a population – women and children?”
Peled: “All, all. Yes.”
Lev Tov: “Don’t you distinguish between them?”
Peled: “The problem is very simple. The war is between two populations. They come out of their home.”
Lev Tov: “If the home exists, they have somewhere to return to?”
Peled: “It’s not armies yet, it’s gangs. We’re also actually gangs. We come out of the house and return to the house. They come out of the house and return to the house. It’s either their house or our house.”
Lev Tov: “Qualms belong to the more recent generation?”
Peled: “Yes, today. When I sit in an armchair here and think about what happened, all kinds of thoughts come to mind.”
Lev Tov: “Wasn’t that the case then?”
Peled: “Look, let me tell you something even less nice and cruel, about the big raid in Sasa [Palestinian village in Upper Galilee]. The goal was actually to deter them, to tell them, ‘Dear friends, the Palmach [the Haganah “shock troops”] can reach every place, you are not immune.’ That was the heart of the Arab settlement. But what did we do? My platoon blew up 20 homes with everything that was there.”
Lev Tov: “While people were sleeping there?”
Peled: “I suppose so. What happened there, we came, we entered the village, planted a bomb next to every house, and afterward Homesh blew on a trumpet, because we didn’t have radios, and that was the signal [for our forces] to leave. We’re running in reverse, the sappers stay, they pull, it’s all primitive. They light the fuse or pull the detonator and all those houses are gone.”
Another passage that the “Defense” Ministry wanted to keep from the public came from Dr. Lev Tov’s conversation with Maj. Gen. Avraham Tamir:
Tamir: “I was under Chera [Maj. Gen. Tzvi Tzur, later IOF chief of staff], and I had excellent working relations with him. He gave me freedom of action – don’t ask – and I happened to be in charge of staff and operations work during two developments deriving from [Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion’s policy. One development was when reports arrived about marches of refugees from Jordan toward the abandoned villages [in Israel]. And then Ben-Gurion lays down as policy that we have to demolish [the villages] so they won’t have anywhere to return to. That is, all the Arab villages, most of which were in [the area covered by] Central Command, most of them.”
Lev Tov: “The ones that were still standing?”
Tamir: “The ones that weren’t yet inhabited by Israelis. There were places where we had already settled Israelis, like Zakariyya and others. But most of them were still abandoned villages.”
Lev Tov: “That were standing?”
Tamir: “Standing. It was necessary for there to be no place for them to return to, so I mobilized all the engineering battalions of Central Command, and within 48 hours I knocked all those villages to the ground. Period. There’s no place to return to.”
Lev Tov: “Without hesitation, I imagine.”
Tamir: “Without hesitation. That was the policy. I mobilized, I carried it out and I did it.”
Crates in vaults
The vault of the Yad Yaari Research and Documentation Center is one floor below ground level. In the vault, which is actually a small, well-secured room, are stacks of crates containing classified documents. The archive houses the materials of the Hashomer Hatzair movement, the Kibbutz Ha’artzi kibbutz movement, Mapam, Meretz and other bodies, such as Peace Now.
The archive’s director is Dudu Amitai, who is also chairman of the Association of Israel Archivists. According to Amitai, Malmab personnel visited the archive regularly between 2009 and 2011. Staff of the archive relate that security department teams – two “Defense” Ministry retirees with no archival training – would show up two or three times a week. They searched for documents according to such keywords as “nuclear,” “security” and “censorship,” and also devoted considerable time to the Nakba and the fate of the pre-1948 Arab villages.
“In the end, they submitted a summary to us, saying that they had located a few dozen sensitive documents,” Amitai says. “We don’t usually take apart files, so dozens of files, in their entirety, found their way into our vault and were removed from the public catalog.” A file might contain more than 100 documents.
One of the files that was sealed deals with the military government that controlled the lives of Israel’s Arab citizens from 1948 until 1966. For years, the documents were stored in the same vault, inaccessible to scholars. Recently, in the wake of a request by Prof. Gadi Algazi, a historian from Tel Aviv University, Amitai examined the file himself and ruled that there was no reason not to unseal it, Malmab’s opinion notwithstanding.
According to Algazi, there could be several reasons for Malmab’s decision to keep the file classified. One of them has to do with a secret annex it contains to a report by a committee that examined the operation of the military government. The report deals almost entirely with land-ownership battles between the state and Arab citizens, and barely touches on security matters.
Another possibility is a 1958 report by the ministerial committee that oversaw the military government. In one of the report’s secret appendixes, Col. Mishael Shaham, a senior officer in the military government, explains that one reason for not dismantling the martial law apparatus is the need to restrict Arab citizens’ access to the labor market and to prevent the reestablishment of destroyed villages.
A third possible explanation for hiding the file concerns previously unpublished historical testimony about the expulsion of Bedouin. On the eve of Israel’s establishment, nearly 100,000 Bedouin lived in the Negev. Three years later, their number was down to 13,000. In the years during and after the independence war, a number of expulsion operations were carried out in the country’s south. In one case, United Nations observers reported that Israel had expelled 400 Bedouin from the Azazma tribe and cited testimonies of tents being burned. The letter that appears in the classified file describes a similar expulsion carried out as late as 1956, as related by geologist Avraham Parnes:
“A month ago we toured Ramon [crater]. The Bedouin in the Mohila area came to us with their flocks and their families and asked us to break bread with them. I replied that we had a great deal of work to do and didn’t have time. In our visit this week, we headed toward Mohila again. Instead of the Bedouin and their flocks, there was deathly silence. Scores of camel carcasses were scattered in the area. We learned that three days earlier the IOF had ‘screwed’ the Bedouin, and their flocks were destroyed – the camels by shooting, the sheep with grenades. One of the Bedouin, who started to complain, was killed, the rest fled.”
The testimony continued, “Two weeks earlier, they’d been ordered to stay where they were for the time being, afterward they were ordered to leave, and to speed things up 500 head were slaughtered…. The expulsion was executed ‘efficiently.’” The letter goes on to quote what one of the soldiers said to Parnes, according to his testimony: “They won’t go unless we’ve screwed their flocks. A young girl of about 16 approached us. She had a beaded necklace of brass snakes. We tore the necklace and each of us took a bead for a souvenir.”
The letter was originally sent to MK Yaakov Uri, from Mapai (forerunner of Labor), who passed it on to Development Minister Mordechai Bentov (Mapam). “His letter shocked me,” Uri wrote Bentov. The latter circulated the letter among all the cabinet ministers, writing, “It is my opinion that the government cannot simply ignore the facts related in the letter.” Bentov added that, in light of the appalling contents of the letter, he asked security experts to check its credibility. They had confirmed that the contents “do in fact generally conform to the truth.”
It was during the tenure of historian Tuvia Friling as Israel’s chief archivist, from 2001 to 2004, that Malmab carried out its first archival incursions. What began as an operation to prevent the leakage of nuclear secrets, he says, became, in time, a large-scale censorship project.
“I resigned after three years, and that was one of the reasons,” Prof. Friling says. “The classification placed on the document about the Arabs’ emigration in 1948 is precisely an example of what I was apprehensive about. The storage and archival system is not an arm of the state’s public relations. If there’s something you don’t like – well, that’s life. A healthy society also learns from its mistakes.”
Why did Friling allow the Defense Ministry to have access the archives? The reason, he says, was the intention to give the public access to archival material via the internet. In discussions about the implications of digitizing the material, concern was expressed that references in the documents to a “certain topic” would be made public by mistake. The topic, of course, is Israel’s nuclear project. Friling insists that the only authorization Malmab received was to search for documents on that subject.
But Malmab’s activity is only one example of a broader problem, Friling notes: “In 1998, the confidentiality of the [oldest documents in the] Shin Bet and Mossad archives expired. For years those two institutions disdained the chief archivist. When I took over, they requested that the confidentiality of all the material be extended [from 50] to 70 years, which is ridiculous – most of the material can be opened.”
In 2010, the confidentiality period was extended to 70 years; last February it was extended again, to 90 years, despite the opposition of the Supreme Council of Archives. “The state may impose confidentiality on some of its documentation,” Friling says. “The question is whether the issue of security doesn’t act as a kind of cover. In many cases, it’s already become a joke.”
In the view of Yad Yaari’s Dudu Amitai, the confidentiality imposed by the Defense Ministry must be challenged. In his period at the helm, he says, one of the documents placed in the vault was an order issued by an IOF general, during a truce in the Nakba, for his troops to refrain from rape and looting. Amitai now intends to go over the documents that were deposited in the vault, especially 1948 documents, and open whatever is possible. “We’ll do it cautiously and responsibly, but recognizing that the State of Israel has to learn how to cope with the less pleasant aspects of its history.”
In contrast to Yad Yaari, where ministry personnel no longer visit, they are continuing to peruse documents at Yad Tabenkin, the research and documentation center of the United Kibbutz Movement. The director, Aharon Azati, reached an agreement with the Malmab teams under which documents will be transferred to the vault only if he is convinced that this is justified. But in Yad Tabenkin, too, Malmab has broadened its searches beyond the realm of nuclear project to encompass interviews conducted by archival staff with former members of the Palmach, and has even perused material about the history of the settlements in the occupied territories.
Malmab has, for example, shown interest in the Hebrew-language book “A Decade of Discretion: Settlement Policy in the Territories 1967-1977,” published by Yad Tabenkin in 1992, and written by Yehiel Admoni, director of the Jewish Agency’s Settlement Department during the decade he writes about. The book mentions a plan to settle Palestinian refugees in the Jordan Valley and to the uprooting of 1,540 Bedouin families from the Rafah area of the Gaza Strip in 1972, including an operation that included the sealing of wells by the IOF. Ironically, in the case of the Bedouin, Admoni quotes former Justice Minister Yaakov Shimshon Shapira as saying, “It is not necessary to stretch the security rationale too far. The whole Bedouin episode is not a glorious chapter of the State of Israel.”
According to Azati, “We are moving increasingly to a tightening of the ranks. Although this is an era of openness and transparency, there are apparently forces that are pulling in the opposite direction.”
About a year ago, the legal adviser to the State Archives, attorney Naomi Aldouby, wrote an opinion titled “Files Closed Without Authorization in Public Archives.” According to her, the accessibility policy of public archives is the exclusive purview of the director of each institution.
Despite Aldouby’s opinion, however, in the vast majority of cases, archivists who encountered unreasonable decisions by Malmab did not raise objections – that is, until 2014, when Defense Ministry personnel arrived at the archive of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. To the visitors’ surprise, their request to examine the archive – which contains collections of former minister and diplomat Abba Eban and Maj. Gen. (res.) Shlomo Gazit – was turned down by its then director, Menahem Blondheim.
According to Blondheim, “I told them that the documents in question were decades old, and that I could not imagine that there was any security problem that would warrant restricting their access to researchers. In response, they said, ‘And let’s say there is testimony here that wells were poisoned in the Nakba?’ I replied, ‘Fine, those people should be brought to trial.’”
Blondheim’s refusal led to a meeting with a more senior ministry official, only this time the attitude he encountered was different and explicit threats were made. Finally the two sides reached an accommodation.
Benny Morris is not surprised at Malmab’s activity. “I knew about it,” he says “Not officially, no one informed me, but I encountered it when I discovered that documents I had seen in the past are now sealed. There were documents from the IOF Archive that I used for an article about Deir Yassin, and which are now sealed. When I came to the archive, I was no longer allowed to see the original, so I pointed out in a footnote [in the article] that the State Archive had denied access to documents that I had published 15 years earlier.”
The Malmab case is only one example of the battle being waged for access to archives in Israel. According to the executive director of the Akevot Institute, Lior Yavne, “The IOF Archive, which is the largest archive in Israel, is sealed almost hermetically. About 1 percent of the material is open. The Shin Bet archive, which contains materials of immense importance [to scholars], is totally closed apart from a handful of documents.”
A report written by Yaacov Lozowick, the previous chief archivist at the State Archives, upon his retirement, refers to the defense establishment’s grip on the country’s archival materials. In it, he writes, “A democracy must not conceal information because it is liable to embarrass the state. In practice, the security establishment in Israel, and to a certain extent that of foreign relations as well, are interfering with the [public] discussion.”
Advocates of concealment put forward several arguments, Lozowick notes: “The uncovering of the facts could provide our enemies with a battering ram against us and weaken the determination of our friends; it’s liable to stir up the Arab population; it could enfeeble the state’s arguments in courts of law; and what is revealed could be interpreted as Israeli war crimes.” However, he says, “All these arguments must be rejected. This is an attempt to hide part of the historical truth in order to construct a more convenient version.”
What Malmab says
Yehiel Horev was the keeper of the security establishment’s secrets for more than two decades. He headed the Israeli occupation’s Defense Ministry’s security department from 1986 until 2007 and naturally kept out of the limelight. To his credit, he now agreed to talk forthrightly to Haaretz about the archives project.
“I don’t remember when it began,” Horev says, “but I do know that I started it. If I’m not mistaken, it started when people wanted to publish documents from the archives. We had to set up teams to examine all outgoing material.”
From conversations with archive directors, it’s clear that a good deal of the documents on which confidentiality was imposed relate to the Nakba. Is concealing the events of 1948 part of the purpose of Malmab?
“What does ‘part of the purpose’ mean? The subject is examined based on an approach of whether it could harm Israel’s foreign relations and the defense establishment. Those are the criteria. I think it’s still relevant. There has not been peace since 1948. I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the Arab-Israeli conflict has not been resolved. So yes, it could be that problematic subjects remain.”
Asked in what way such documents might be problematic, Horev speaks of the possibility of agitation among the country’s Arab citizens. From his point of view, every document must be perused and every case decided on its merits.
If the events of 1948 weren’t known, we could argue about whether this approach is the right one. That is not the case. Many testimonies and studies have appeared about the history of the refugee problem. What’s the point of hiding things?
“The question is whether it can do harm or not. It’s a very sensitive matter. Not everything has been published about the refugee issue, and there are all kinds of narratives. Some say there was no flight at all, only expulsion. Others say there was flight. It’s not black-and-white. There’s a difference between flight and those who say they were forcibly expelled. It’s a different picture. I can’t say now if it merits total confidentiality, but it’s a subject that definitely has to be discussed before a decision is made about what to publish.”
For years, the Defense Ministry has imposed confidentiality on a detailed document that describes the reasons for the departure of those who became refugees. Benny Morris has already written about the document, so what’s the logic of keeping it hidden?
“I don’t remember the document you’re referring to, but if he quoted from it and the document itself is not there [i.e., where Morris says it is], then his facts aren’t strong. If he says, ‘Yes, I have the document,’ I can’t argue with that. But if he says that it’s written there, that could be right and it could be wrong. If the document were already outside and were sealed in the archive, I would say that that’s folly. But if someone quoted from it – there’s a difference of day and night in terms of the validity of the evidence he cited.”
In this case, we’re talking about the most quoted scholar when it comes to the Palestinian refugees.
“The fact that you say ‘scholar’ makes no impression on me. I know people in academia who spout nonsense about subjects that I know from A to Z. When the state imposes confidentiality, the published work is weakened, because he doesn’t have the document.”
But isn’t concealing documents based on footnotes in books an attempt to lock the barn door after the horses have bolted?
“I gave you an example that this needn’t be the case. If someone writes that the horse is black, if the horse isn’t outside the barn, you can’t prove that it’s really black.”
There are legal opinions stating that Malmab’s activity in the archives is illegal and unauthorized.
“If I know that an archive contains classified material, I am empowered to tell the police to go there and confiscate the material. I can also utilize the courts. I don’t need the archivist’s authorization. If there is classified material, I have the authority to act. Look, there’s policy. Documents aren’t sealed for no reason. And despite it all, I won’t say to you that everything that’s sealed is 100 percent justified [in being sealed].”
The Israeli occupation’s Defense Ministry refused to respond to specific questions regarding the findings of this investigative report and made do with the following response: “The director of security of the defense establishment operates by virtue of his responsibility to protect the state’s secrets and its security assets. The Malmab does not provide details about its mode of activity or its missions.”
An international body of Muslim nations has condemned the opening of an Israeli tunnel that runs beneath the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in occupied East Jerusalem. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on Wednesday called it a “bold and irresponsible move” that seeks “to alter the historic and legal status” of east Jerusalem.
The OIC reiterated its position that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory, noting the Israeli measures constitute a violation of international law.
OIC affirmed the importance of preserving the Arab, Islamic, and Christian identity and cultural heritage of Jerusalem.
The tunnel, which is both dangerous and illegal under international law, has been endorsed by senior US politicians.
The tunnel, dubbed “pilgrim tunnel”, has left dozens of houses in Silwan damaged, leaving Palestinian residents at risk of their homes being collapsed because of the illegal project.
US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and US Mideast Envoy Jason Greenblatt on Sunday joined an Israeli settler-linked group at the ceremony opening of the tunnel.
Friedman has been a supporter of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, and Greenblatt last week said he preferred to call them “neighbourhoods and cities” rather than settlements.
Israel took over mainly Palestinian east Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed it in a move never recognised by the international community.
It now considers the entire city its capital, citing the Jewish historical and biblical connection there.
The Palestinians see east Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, as the capital of their future state.
Some 320,000 Palestinians live in east Jerusalem, while the Israeli settler population there has grown to 210,000.
The area Area C of the occupied West Bank, where planning and construction are entirely controlled by the Israeli Civil Administration
The Oslo agreement of 1995 divided the occupied West Bank into three: area A, area B and area C.
Area A is under the administrative and security control of the Palestinian Authority. Area B’s administration is controlled by the PA, with Israel controlling security. Area C is under full administrative and security control of Israel.
All Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank are classed as illegal under international law, particularly Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which asserts that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
Israeli forces and settlers routinely attack Palestinians in the occupied territories, demolishing their homes, poisoning their livestock and vandalising properties.
Little Palestinian boy lost his leg after being shot by Israeli forces ‘while playing football.’
Mahmoud Salah, a 15-year-old Palestinian, was full of life, sparing no moment to joke and play with his friends in al-Khader town in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem.
He was playing football with his peers in the town when an Israeli bullet ripped through his left leg, nipping all his dreams right in the bud.
“A month ago, I was playing football with my friends when the ball crossed the wire near an Israeli military checkpoint,” Salah told Anadolu Agency.
“As I moved to get the ball, I heard heavy gunfire; I was shot and injured,” he said.
Despite his injuries, the Palestinian minor was arrested by Israeli forces and was moved to a hospital for treatment.
After a three-day coma, Salah woke up on a very tragic scene; his left leg was amputated.
“It was an unexpected shock that I have never imagined,” Salah said, trying to hold back his tears.
“This amputation has destroyed me,” he said. “It would have been easier for me to be sentenced to life in prison than amputating my leg.”
“I do not know how I will pursue my life, how I will live with my friends,” Salah said. “Today, I’m disabled.”
“My dream of life has been killed,” the Palestinian boy said.
Despite his shock, Salah still hopes to complete his treatment and install a prosthetic leg, and go to university.
“Sometimes I feel that my leg is still there, but when I look down, I see it amputated,” he said.
Salah was accused by Israeli interrogators of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli military checkpoint, charges he denied.
Salah’s mother, Aisha Salah, says her son’s leg amputation was the “hardest moment of her life”.
“It was one of the most difficult moments of my life,” she told Anadolu Agency.
“It feels like they have cut a piece of my heart,” she said.
Notably, Salah’s brother Bakr is held by the Israeli authorities.
“The [Israeli] occupation is fighting us with everything,” the bereaved mother said. “My eldest son was arrested, and the other son was handicapped.”
Amana Farahna, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Prisoner Society, an NGO, accused the Israeli army of intentionally targeting children and arresting them.
“The case of Mahmoud Salah is similar to a number of cases of children, who were subjected to gunfire and medical negligence that resulted in amputations,” she told Anadolu Agency.
“The Israeli army is deliberately targeting children in the limbs and turning them into disabled people, to create a state of deterrence against children.”
Farahna cited that the Israeli army has arrested around 220 Palestinian minors under the age of 18, held them in inhuman conditions and subjected them to harsh interrogations.
She denounced “the policy of arresting children, which contradicts with the rights of the child, and international law”.
According to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority’s Commission for Prisoners’ Affairs, the total number of Palestinians in Israeli custody currently stands at 5,700 — including numerous women and children.
Gaza: Fishermen protest Israel’s acts of piracy – Photo File
Hundreds of Palestinian fishermen on Thursday staged a sit-in at the port of Gaza City in protest at Israel’s measures and aggressive practices against them.
The Israeli occupation authority has recently escalated its restrictions on fishing activity in Gaza waters, where it kept attacking fishermen, arresting them, confiscating their boats and equipment, closing the Gaza sea and manipulating the permitted fishing area.
The fishermen demand an end to Israel’s repeated sea closures and its daily attacks on them.
They have called on the international community and its concerned organizations to urgently intervene to provide protection for the fishermen and curb Israel’s acts of piracy against them.