Occupied Palestine (QNN)- The Committee of Prisoners and Former Prisoners said on Monday that Palestinian minors in the Damon jail are held in very bad conditions and are subjected to several abuses.
After a visit to the Israeli jail, a lawyer for the committee said that the representative of the Palestinian minors in Israeli jails, Muhammad Joulani, in addition to other children prisoners were subjected to several abuses during arrest and interrogation and also during transfer to courts.
Joulani assured that children prisoners are usually sent to courts by prisoner transport vehicles, which are poorly ventilated and have no seats. They normally need three days on the way to courts, during which they stay handcuffed and get beaten and robbed by the Israelis.
Joulani also said that Israeli jailers and members of the Nahshon unit at the Ramleh jail have recently attacked six minors, who tried to get their robbed personal belongings back. The committee has identified five of the six minors; Usama Taha, Noor Ajlouni, Ahmad Khalifeh, Abdel Munem Natsheh, and Odai Derbas.
Noor Ajlouni (16 years old) and Ahmad Khalifeh (16 years old) said they were beaten by Israeli undercover soldiers during their arrest in Shu’fat refugee camp back in September 29.
The soldiers held them down and handcuffed them before brutally beating them using their rifles.
Khalifeh stated that when he arrived the Nabi Yaqoub police center, an Israeli policeman untied his lace and tried to strangle him, which pushed Khalifeh to bite the policeman in self-defense. Seven policemen came after that, held him down and tear-gased him, then left the cell, leaving him suffocating alone.
Ajlouni and Khalifeh were interrogated at the Maskoubiyyeh interrogation center in Jerusalem as well, where they were subjected to 36 days of torture and solitary confinement. Khalifeh has got a deep wound in his head during a torture session.
In the same vein, Abdessalam Abu Laban (16 years old) from Jerusalem, who has been held since last October, said that he has been held at the Maskubiyyeh center for 24 days, during which he was tortured and beaten. Members of Nahshon unit also assaulted him while he was being sent to a court session. They tightened his handcuffs, which caused severe pain. When he complained, they hit his head to the wall several times.
‘Israel’ holds 47 Palestinian children in the Damon jail, most of them are from occupied Jerusalem. It also holds approximately 200 children in its jails.
On Oct. 11, 2019, Facebook shut down the Palestinian Information Center, a news page with five million followers, without prior notice. Six days later, at the request of the attorney general of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Ramallah Magistrates Court ordered the blocking of 59 websites under the pretext that they were threatening “national security, public order, and public manners.”
Shortly afterward — ironically, on the morning of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists — Twitter blocked three accounts of the Quds News Network, an independent Palestinian media outlet with a large online following. Metras, another Palestinian website on the PA’s blacklist, reported that a number of their Facebook posts were flagged and deleted, and that they received a warning that their page might be taken down.
WhatsApp, the messaging app now owned by Facebook, also blocked or shut down around one hundred accounts belonging to Palestinian journalists and activists, and banned them from sharing information and updates during Israel’s military attacks on Gaza last month.
Such censorship of Palestinian online content is escalating at an unprecedented and dangerous speed. To express your political views as a Palestinian, you must now tiptoe around three different authorities: Israel, the Fatah-led PA in the West Bank, and the de facto Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, each of which suppresses political speech according to their own varying definitions of incitement and unwanted dissent.
Legal cover for repression The crackdown on Palestinian free speech on social media began in late 2015 in the aftermath of the “knife intifada,” during which social media platforms were blamed for allowing communications that encouraged the outbreak of violence and so-called “lone-wolf attacks” by Palestinian youth. As a result, social media platforms became fresh grounds for suppression and surveillance by governing authorities.
Since then, Israel has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Palestinians for posts they wrote or shared on social media. Using “predictive policing” tools to monitor social media accounts and flag suspects of future attacks, Israel has targeted Palestinians — both citizens of Israel and residents of the occupied West Bank — for jail sentences based on broad and vague charges of “incitement to violence.”
The PA joined this repressive wave in 2017 when President Mahmoud Abbas enacted the controversial Cybercrime Law, which drew heavy criticism across the board and was reformed a year later after pressure from Palestinian civil society. The law provides legal cover for the PA’s increasing crackdown on political dissent, particularly from its political rivals, and on criticism and calls for accountability by ordinary Palestinians.
It is no wonder, then, that most of the websites targeted in the PA’s recent ban are either affiliated with Fatah’s rival Hamas, or are independent sites critical of the Palestinian leadership and which have exposed corruption within the PA. The law has also been used to prosecute Palestinian activists, journalists and, last month, a lawyer, Muhannad Karaja, for criticizing the PA’s relations with Israel on Facebook.
The Cybercrime Law is not the PA’s first foray into online censorship; just days before the law first emerged in 2017, the PA blocked about 20 websites, some of which re-appeared on the public prosecutor’s list this year. But its recent actions have gone much further than before.
The takedown of Metras’ Facebook content, and the deletion of all the Twitter accounts of the Quds News Network, indicates that the PA is following Israel’s direction in pressuring social media companies to remove unfavorable Palestinian content from their platforms. The head of the cybercrime division at the public prosecution’s office, Nisreen Zeina, said herself that they would contact Facebook to request the removal of such pages.
The status of freedom of expression in Gaza is equally dire. The Hamas government relies on a 2009 amendment to the penal code which criminalizes the “misuse of technology” to promote or disseminate “indecent” or “inciteful” content. These terms are so vague that they serve as catch-webs for Palestinian activists and journalists who use social media to express their views; even the charge of “indecency” effectively includes any public criticism of Hamas officials, their governance, or their policies.
Corporate complicity A centerpiece in all this is the social media companies themselves and their policies of “content moderation.” In recent years, American social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have tightened their rules regarding hate speech and content that incites to violence, terrorism and discrimination — or, at least, that’s what they claim to have done.
These rules are opaque and only loosely relate to human rights, which leaves it to the companies to decide what does or doesn’t constitute hate speech. Indeed, there are countless examples, particularly of Facebook, the most popular platform among Palestinian internet users, deleting content or suspending Palestinian accounts only to apologize and reinstate them following public outcry.
Take the recent case of Facebook’s content removal campaign, which triggered angry calls to boycott the platform among Palestinians. According to Sada Social, a Palestinian initiative that monitors and documents cases of censorship on social media, Facebook deleted hundreds of posts and accounts, including some dating back many years, that contained any of the following words: “Hamas,” “Jihad,” “Shaheed,” “Al Qassam,” “Al Saraya,” and “Hezbollah.”
The flagging and removal of old and new content indicates the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for content moderation, meaning that these words are added to a list of content to be automatically listed and removed. If this is the case, numerous questions remained unanswered to the public: how are these rules developed? Who decides them? And how are they enforced?
In addition to all this, Facebook’s practices reveal a political bias in favor of elevating the Israeli narrative while suppressing the Palestinian one.
In policing Palestinian online spheres since 2015, Facebook accepted most requests made by the Israeli government’s cyber unit, which was set up to counter Palestinian social media content that it deems to be “inciting to violence.” This strategy of levying pressure on social media companies to regulate their own content has become common for many governments both democratic and authoritarian alike.
The asymmetric battle of narratives did not start with the social media era, but was certainly amplified by it. Some words that Facebook had censored, such as “shaheed” (martyr in Arabic), are part of expressions of Palestinian collective identity as an occupied people. In these cases, what Palestinians consider to be an exercise of their rights to freedom and self-determination is regarded by Israel as terrorism and incitement.
This is what Israeli scholar Yonatan Mendel describes as the politics of non-translation: Israeli authorities, media, and academia systematically empty the Palestinian lexicon of its contextual meaning, and fill it instead with demonizing and negative values tied to glorifying death, violence, and terrorism.
Politicized technology Do Facebook employees in Silicon Valley or elsewhere take these aspects into consideration? It’s highly doubtful, and they cannot use ignorance as an excuse. There are far stronger economic and political incentives for Facebook and other social media companies to comply with Israeli government requests. This is in addition to the fact that the companies do not see the Palestinian “market” as significant, except for when there is occasional outcry at the companies’ discriminatory policies that garner international media attention.
There is also a general perception that AI is a neutral technology that is protected from the whims of human intervention and people’s subjective bias. The belief is that whereas in the past, an overworked and underpaid worker would have to make a quick and possibly flawed decision whether to delete, ignore, or report a flagged content on a social media platform, today an algorithm can objectively identify content that violates a platform’s rules.
This is a false and dangerous claim. Human bias and discrimination always seep into the programming of these technologies and the decisions to ban certain words. And in the Palestinian case, those decisions are political at their very core.
Palestinian cyberspace has therefore become a scary place, and the growing crackdown on Palestinian freedom of expression on the internet has had a severe chilling effect on political speech and participation. According to a new research by the organization 7amleh, two thirds of young Palestinians now refrain from airing their political views on social media for fear of reprisal and oppression.
With attacks and restrictions on free speech coming from every direction, it has become harder to defend Palestinians’ online space and fundamental rights — but it remains an urgent responsibility nonetheless. Yet instead of assuming this duty, the PA, like Israel and Hamas, is learning how to better censor its own people’s voices. If it genuinely wants to safeguard “national security, public order, and public manners,” as it claims, the PA should start by taking its eyes (and its hands) off the screens of ordinary Palestinians.
Occupied Palestine (QNN)- A new joint study revealed that the occupation state arrested 374 Palestinians throughout occupied Palestine during last November, including 66 children and 6 women.
According to a fact sheet, which was issued by Palestine Prisoners’ Club, Addameer, and the Committee of Prisoners and Former Prisoners, most prisoners were arrested in occupied Jerusalem.
It revealed that 137 Palestinians were arrested from occupied Jerusalem, 42 from Ramallah and Bireh, 70 from Hebron, 22 from Jenin, 43 from Bethlehem, 12 from Nablus, 15 from Tulkarem, 7 from Qalqilyah, 5 from Tubas, 2 from Salfit, 8 from Jericho, and 11 from Gaza.
The total number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails has reached nearly 5000 until last November, including 38 women, 200 children, and 450 under administrative detention.
The sheet also revealed that Israeli authorities is holding dozens of elderly Palestinians (over 60 years old) in very poor conditions.
London (QNN)- A new investigation by the Guardian revealed that an Israeli group has been running a hate speech campaign against Muslims and the Left around the globe to gain profit.
The mysterious group has used some of Facebook’s largest far-right pages to create a commercial enterprise that harvests anti-Islamic hate for profit and influences politics across the globe, the investigation revealed.
The Israeli group has co-opted at least 21 organically grown far-right pages for the past two years, and used them to spread thousands of coordinated posts to more than 1 million followers across four continents and funnelling audiences to a cluster of 10 advertisement-heavy websites to milk the traffic for profit.
“The posts stoke deep hatred of Islam across the western world and influence politics in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US by amplifying far-right parties including Australia’s One Nation and vilifying Muslim politicians such as US Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar”, according to the Guardian.
It also targeted leftwing politicians during national election campaigns through spreading false stories about the UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau.
The network uncovered by the Guardian has operated with relative impunity even since Mark Zuckerberg offered his apology to the US Senate after the Cambridge Analytica and Russian interference scandals.
The investigation revealed that the Israeli network has gained access to existing rightwing and far-right Facebook pages by approaching local administrators and offering to act as editors who could bring new content and increase reach.
“Once they gain access, the Israeli administrators publish identical posts almost simultaneously to the network’s 21 Facebook pages, which have a combined 1 million followers around the globe”, according to the Guardian.
“Queensland University of Technology researchers worked with the Guardian to confirm that the Facebook posts are being distributed by a single source across the 21 pages, probably using auto-scheduling software.”
The network published 5,695 coordinated posts receiving 846,424 likes, shares or comments in October alone. The total number of the network’s posts has reached 165,000, which attracted 14.3m likes, shares or comments.
One of the most ironic features of Zionism and the state of Israel is the central way in which the concept of “return” informs their ideology and policies.
Zionism’s colonial project hinged on the claim that contemporary European Jews were descendants of the ancient Hebrews of Palestine, and that their colonisation plan was nothing but a strategy to “return” Jews to the land of their alleged ancestors after an absence of two millennia. Thus, the concept of “return” was, and remains, the ideological cornerstone of Zionism and the state of Israel.
In the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, issued in May 1948, the settler-colony’s founders asserted: “After being forcibly exiled from their land, the [Jewish] people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom … In recent decades they returned in their masses … The state of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles.”
UN Resolution 194 This commitment was guaranteed by Israel in issuing the 1950 Law of Return, which secured the right of every Jew worldwide “to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant]”. Meanwhile, Zionist militias expelled the Palestinian people from their homeland, starting in late 1947. By the end of 1948, the year that Israel was created, more than 750,000 Palestinians had been expelled.
This compelled the United Nations to issue Resolution 194 in December 1948, stipulating that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
The Israeli government has consistently rejected Resolution 194. In an attempt to challenge the Palestinian right of return, Israel issued its Law of Return for Jews a year and a half after the UN resolution.
The irony is not one that Israel does not recognise the right of refugees to return to their homeland; rather, Israel recognises only the right of Jews – whom it claims, based on its religious and colonial myths, were refugees from Palestine who had lived in exile for 2,000 years – to “return”, while it denies that right to Palestinians, whom it recognises as having been displaced from Palestine.
The basis of this discrepancy is not an Israeli affirmation that Jews were exiled, but that Palestinians were not, or that Palestinians did not originate in Palestine, just as it claims the Jews did.
Rather, the crux of the matter for Israel is its full understanding that international law and the UN guarantee of the right of return for expelled Palestinians negates the right of return that Israel grants to Jews worldwide, and therefore the Jewish right to colonise the homeland of the Palestinians.
Return as colonisation While Theodor Herzl did not speak of a “return” of the Jews in his 1896 pamphlet The State of the Jews, in his 1902 novel Old-New Land, he emphasised the concept of “return”, which he explicitly coupled with colonisation. This understanding of return-as-colonisation-as-expulsion-of-the-natives was always explicit and never covered up by the early Zionists, who were, after all, writing during the heyday of European colonialism.
In Herzl’s novel, the idea is first articulated by a fictional Eastern European character: “Dr. Weiss, a simple rabbi from a provincial town in Moravia”. Weiss states: “A new movement has arisen within the last few years, which is called Zionism. Its aim is to solve the Jewish problem through colonization on a large scale. All who can no longer bear their present lot will return to our old home, to Palestine.”
By 1923, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leader of Revisionist Zionism, had laid out the Zionist coupling in his manifesto, The Iron Wall, writing that “when the whole of the civilised world has recognised that Jews have a right to return to Palestine, which means that the Jews are, in principle, also ‘citizens’ and ‘inhabitants’ of Palestine, only they were driven out, and their return must be a lengthy process, it is wrong to contend that meanwhile the local population has the right to refuse to allow them to come back … Palestine consists of two national groups, the local group and these who were driven out, and the second group is the larger.”
Jabotinsky, like Herzl, understood that the so-called “return” of the Jews to Palestine was nothing but colonisation: “There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs … it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting ‘Palestine’ from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority … I suggest that [my readers] consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
“The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.”
Undoing Israel’s racist system In contrast with Palestinians, whose right of return is affirmed in international law and UN resolutions, there are no international documents or laws that guarantee a Jewish “right of return” to Palestine or Israel. Neither the Balfour Declaration of 1917 nor the UN Partition Plan of 1947 spoke of any rights for Jews to “return” to Palestine. Only Israeli ideological claims and Israeli law grants them such a right.
Herein lies the reason why the two rights of return are not symmetrical in Israeli argumentation, any more than they are in international law. It is precisely because the European Jews’ “right” to return to their alleged “homeland” could only be realised through colonisation of the homeland of Palestinians, and Jewish colonisation of Palestinian land could only be realised through the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians and ensuring their inability to ever return home, that a Palestinian right of return would undo the entire Zionist project, which is premised on their expulsion.
Exercising the internationally recognised Palestinian right of return negates the Israeli Jewish “right” to colonise Palestine and annuls the Israeli Law of Return. Israel understands very well that the return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants means nothing short of decolonisation, and the undoing of the racist special status that Israel exclusively grants to Jews.
International law’s understanding of the rights of refugees includes the rights of their descendants to return, something that Israel and pro-Israel forces question as illegitimate. Yet, Israel’s concept of the return of Jews, as later amended in its law of return, allows not only those recognised as Jews to “return” to Israel, but also a non-Jewish “child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.”
This amendment is in line with Zionism’s initial and permanent conception that the exclusive Jewish “right of return” means the Jewish right to colonise Palestine.
The Bosnian case Israeli assertions, however, are not shared by the UN or international law.
In addition to the UN’s repeated reassertions of Palestinian refugees’ right of return, the right of return of displaced people was upheld in principle and practice after the Bosnian War. Around half a million refugees and internally displaced persons returned, with international assistance, after the 1995 Dayton Agreement, to their homes in Bosnia, a country of 3.5 million people dominated demographically and politically by members of another ethnic community.
As the Bosnian case clearly demonstrates, the right of return of the refugees trumped the racially separatist policies of local authorities, who sought to continue to control the land of the displaced refugees and to populate it demographically with their own ethnic group, at the expense of the refugees.
International enforcement of the Bosnian refugees’ right of return was based on the well-established right of return of refugees in international law and UN resolutions. Demographic racial separatism had no moral or legal standing whatsoever in enforcing the refugees’ right of return. This remains the case today, with the right of Somali refugees and their descendants to return to their country.
It is this established right that the Trump administration is seeking to undo through its ongoing attempts to destroy UNRWA, the UN agency that aids Palestinian refugees, and to redefine who is or is not a refugee.
With Palestinians outnumbering Jews today across Israeli-occupied Palestine, Israel’s enactment of the nation-state law in July 2018 was engineered to secure racial Jewish supremacy in the country, after Israel’s failure to secure Jewish demographic supremacy.
Colonial settlements The Israeli conception of rights is not universal, but always particular – indeed, always specific to Jews. It is this particularism that Israel seeks to render compatible with international law’s universalism.
If the universalism of the Palestinian right of return, based on international law and UN resolutions, is undone in favour of the Israeli particularism of a Jewish “right of return” imposed by US and Israeli diktat as the new basis of international law, then the threat of a Palestinian return would be neutralised, and the right to continued Jewish colonisation of Palestine would be guaranteed.
The Trump administration’s recent decision affirming that Jewish colonial settlements in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are not in contravention of international law, is the logical outcome of earlier Israeli and US efforts to deny Palestinians the right of return by redefining who is or is not a refugee.
The Zionist colonisation of Palestine was based on a particularist Jewish right of return-as-colonisation-as-expulsion of Palestinians; in short, it was based on racial supremacy, which justified this alleged right.
The Palestinian struggle today, therefore, must not waver on the implementation of the Palestinian right of return, as this right is the legal key to undoing the Zionist conquest of Palestine in its entirety.
Israel and its US ally understand this very well, which is why they are fighting with all their might to undo it.
Hebron (QNN)- Israeli soldiers arrested this morning a 14-year-old girl, who was on the way to school, claiming that she was carrying a knife and that she tried to stab armed Israeli soldiers near the Ibrahimi mosque.
Israeli media claimed that Afnan Abu Sneineh attacked Israeli soldiers near the Ibrahimi mosque.
The child was arrested at the Abu Irrish military checkpoint near the Ibrahimi mosque in the city.
Israeli soldiers carry out daily campaigns against school children throughout occupied Palestine, arresting and assaulting several of them.
Gaza (QNN)- In agony and sadness, the two laddies spoke about their experiences after Israeli bullets took their eyes. They did not hurt anyone, they were just among others demanding the rights of the Palestinian people.
Mai Abu Rweidah and Jacqueline Shihadeh are two young ladies, whose eyes were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers while they were participating in Gaza’s Great Return March protests in central Gaza. One of them has completely lost her eye while the other had 90% disability.
“I want my eye back!”, said Abu Rweidah (23 years old) to QNN reporter following a surgery to remove her damaged eye. “I was in a peaceful protest, seeking our rights”.
Remembering what happened with her during the protest, Abu Rweidah said: “I was standing close to the border fence along with others when the [Israeli] soldiers directly and deliberately targeted us with tear gas grenades”.
One of the soldiers made a provocative gesture before firing a rubber-coated metal bullet directly and deliberately at her right eye to completely damage it, according to Abu Rweidah.
After she was evacuated to hospital, she knew that there was a fracture in her skull and severe damage in the eye, which pushed doctors at the Shifaa hospital to remove the damaged eye.
Abu Rweidah, who studied medical secretary at Al-Azhar University and was graduated only last month, said she has been wounded twice before while participating in the weekly peaceful protests; the first was with two rubber-coated metal bullets in her legs and hand and the second was in her forehead, which was very close to her eye. “If it weren’t for God’s mercy, my eye would have been damaged at the time”, she said.
Jacqueline Shihadeh (31 years old) from Maghazi is a mother of two children. She was wounded nine months ago by the Israelis during Gaza’s Great Return March protests. She told QNN that Israeli soldiers were stationed behind the fence, targeting everyone at the protest.
She was standing close to the fence along with other protesters when Israeli soldiers unexpectedly targeted them with live ammunition and rubber-coated metal bullets in addition to tear gas. A rubber-coated metal bullet wounded her hand then bounced to wound her eye as well.
When she was evacuated to hospital, she found out that she had lacerated tendons in her hand. But the worst part is that her retina was severely damaged and she had hemorrhage in the eye, leading to 90% vision loss.
Although Shihadeh has been getting treatment at specialized medical centers, she hasn’t been healed yet and her hope of restoring eyesight haven’t been fulfilled. It was a psychological damage more than just a physical one.
She told QNN that she can’t do the very simple things that she used to do for her family and children. She can’t focus or read a lot. She has been increasingly losing her morale especially that treatment opportunities in Gaza’s and Palestine’s hospitals are very limited.
“My life has been turned inside out. I didn’t expect that the injury would affect my life this way. My eye looks fine but I need treatment so that I can be able to use it again”, she said.
Both ladies hope to be treated at hospitals in the occupied land. They also called on officials to help them get treatment there because the occupation state rejects all those, who were wounded during participation in the Great Return March protests.
Occupied Jerusalem (QNN)- Israeli occupation forces increased their attacks against journalists in Palestine, arresting four journalists from Palestine TV and a former prisoner, who was a guest in a program and at the channel’s office in Jerusalem.
Israeli forces arrested journalist Dana Abu Shamsiyyeh and photojournalist Amir Abed Rabbo, while they were filming “Good Morning Jerusalem” show. The forces also arrested the guest of the program, former prisoner Muhammad Abbasi.
In the same context, Israeli forces arrested on Thursday journalist Kristine Rinawi and photojournalist Ali Yaseen from the Bab Al Amoud area in occupied Jerusalem.
The Palestinian Public Authority for Radio and Television held the occupation state responsible for the safety of the journalists and stressed that it will pursue the issue by all the means available to it.
It also urged the United Nations and European Union to immediately intervene in order to stop Israel’s crimes against journalists and the freedom of expression in Palestine.
Ramallah (QNN)- An Israeli NGO said that Israeli authorities demolished 165 houses in occupied Jerusalem this year under the pretext of being build without permission.
Spokesperson for B’Tselem organization, Kareem Jobran, said the Israeli municipality has scaled up its house demolition policy and refused to reveal its charts, which organize Palestinians’ house construction in occupied Jerusalem.
Jobran stated that in addition to 165 houses that were demolished, the Israelis imposed large fines on Palestinians in the city, which pushed many of them to demolish their houses.
He also said that the Israelis canceled all the old construction charts, which were adopted by Jordan before the Israeli occupation of the city, and declared most Palestinian areas natural reserves and archaeological sites to demolish Palestinians’ houses and prevent them from construction.