To: Mr. Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense
Re: Sweeping Prohibitions on Palestinian Movement in the Jordan Valley
Ref: Our letter to Minister of Defense Amir Peretz from 26 December 2006
Response from Ruth Bar, Assistant to the Minister, from 10 April 2007
Dear Mr. Barak:
1. We write to you regarding the ongoing sweeping movement prohibitions imposed by the armed forces on the residents of the West Bank entering the Jordan Valley region, which extends from north of Jericho (the village of Al-Auja) to the town of Bisan in the northern valley, and from the border with Jordan on the east to Tayasir in the west. These prohibitions and physical constraints on movement lead to the continued severing and isolation of the Jordan Valley and its residents from the other areas of the West Bank.
2. In our previous letter to your predecessor in this position, Mr. Amir Peretz, from 26 December 2006, we made note of the movement restrictions imposed by the security forces on Palestinian residents of the West Bank entering the Jordan Valley region, in vehicle and on foot, and we appealed for their removal.
3. In the response from Ms. Ruth Bar, Assistant to the Defense Minister, from 10 April 2007, we were informed: After examination of the claims and facts cited in your letter, I hereby respond as follows: In recent days the need for continued imposition of these movement restrictions was reevaluated. At the conclusion of this evaluation, it was decided that the movement restrictions, as noted above, would soon be rescinded so that entry to the Jordan Valley region would be permitted to all residents of Judea and Samaria, subject to security checks at various inspection points. In light of the vital importance of concluding the necessary security arrangements before the aforementioned movement restrictions are lifted, it was decided that the movement restrictions would be rescinded by the end of May 2007. Read more about the success of ACRI’s previous intervention here.
Ongoing Isolation and Severing of the Jordan Valley from other West Bank Areas
4. Despite these statements, the movement prohibitions in the Jordan Valley region were rescinded only partially. As a result, the Jordan Valley region continues to be cut off from other parts of the West Bank by physical blockades, staffed checkpoints, and prohibitions on movement.
5. The two main checkpoints used by these residents are Tayasir and Hamra. Passage by vehicle through these checkpoints is prohibited to West Bank Palestinians with the exception of those registered as residents of the Jordan Valley. But even for these residents, passage is contingent upon a number of conditions. Every Palestinian who approaches must present documents to the soldiers at the checkpoint proving that the car is registered in his name. If the car is registered in someone else’s name, even a member of his immediate family, passage is prohibited.
6. There are additional prohibitions: a prohibition against transporting animals such as sheep, goats, and donkeys from the West Bank to the Jordan Valley; a prohibition on transferring construction materials (unless a permit is issued in advance). Even when a permit exists, the goods must be unloaded so they can be inspected and then transferred via the “back to back” method.
7. The checkpoints operate only some hours of the day, and usually close at 9:00 p.m. The soldiers’ conduct at these checkpoints is harsh and degrading to the residents. Residents report that long waits and humiliation are part of the routine of crossing, especially at the Tayasir checkpoint. Complaints about this have been repeatedly filed in the past.
8. But while movement prohibitions and restrictions are imposed on the Palestinian residents of the area, Israelis are allowed to move into and out of the area with no constraints.
Damage to the Population
9. There are approximately 27,000 residents in the closed region of the Jordan Valley. Much of the land is used for agriculture, providing a livelihood for thousands of families. Many of the landowners do not reside in the closed Jordan Valley region, but in towns and villages in the general area, such as Tubas and Tayasir.
10. The movement prohibitions and constraints place a burden on the residents of the closed region by limiting their movement: Only those having a vehicle registered in their name are permitted to enter or leave the region in their vehicles. This is onerous for supply, service and commercial vehicles, as well as the ability of families to move freely, as not every family member enjoys separate and private ownership of a vehicle.
11. Preventing the entry of vehicles owned by West Bank residents, in addition to the other prohibitions cited above, harms commercial ties and work relations between those who reside in the Jordan Valley and residents of the other areas, also affecting the livelihood of those living in other areas: It impairs the ability of farmers and those who own land in the closed area to make a living from their agricultural lands; it makes it difficult for workers to reach their jobs, and for employers to find workers; it is a great burden on merchants trying to market their goods and sometimes even prevents them from doing so.
12. The restrictions on movement also undermine the ability to maintain family ties and other social and cultural relations.
13. This regime of prohibitions separates parts of the West Bank from each other, dividing populations and communities that are related in all aspects of their lives, and bringing devastation to the entire population and their ability to maintain economic, social, and cultural ties. This impact of this regime is severe and far-reaching, causing damage in both the short and long term.
14. The continued imposition of movement prohibitions entrenches the isolation of the Jordan Valley from other parts of the West Bank and harms the fabric of life of the population.
Illegality of the Directives
15. This matter concerns the sweeping prohibitions on movement imposed in general on all residents of the West Bank that violate the right to freedom of movement within the occupied area.
16. To the best of our knowledge and based on declarations by military representatives on various occasions – enforcement of the movement prohibitions into the Jordan Valley region have been carried out without legal authorization. First, as noted in the Defense Ministry’s response from April 2007 quoted above, a decision was made to rescind the movement prohibitions into the Jordan Valley region. Second, on other occasions, including the High Court of Justice case 7577/06, the IDF testified to the Court that the only town on which “encirclement” was imposed at the time and for which vehicular traffic into and out of it was restricted was the city of Nablus. To that end, the military commander signed a special order. We are not aware of any other order authorizing security forces to prevent West Bank residents from moving from within the West Bank into the Jordan Valley region, whether in general or on specific roads. Therefore these actions by the security forces in the region are being executed without authorization and in breach of one of the basic tenets of the rule of law.
17. In addition, the IDF actions preventing the movement of West Bank residents are unreasonable in the extreme and disproportionate. The basic obligation of the military commander in the occupied area is to protect and safeguard the way of life of the local population. Cutting off the region by imposing obstructions and movement restrictions to and from it contravenes this obligation. It undermines the ability of the population to preserve the fabric of its life, and ensure its material livelihood and its social and cultural survival.
18. Certainly it is within the authority of the military commander to declare some areas closed military zones. This must be carried out by publication of a written order as required, and only after a careful and meticulous examination of all the relevant factors, including the necessary security needs, the extent of the prohibition or restrictions required to achieve the goal, the anticipated repercussions of movement prohibitions on residents of the area, alternative actions, and weighing the proportionality of the harm (see HCJ 9593/04 Murar v. Commander of Military Forces in Judea and Samaria (unpublished); HCJ 6893/05 MK Rabbi Yitzhak Levi v. Government of Israel).
In this matter, these conditions were not met.
19. First, it is not at all clear what legitimate goals these sweeping movement prohibitions seek to promote, even ostensibly. It is also not clear how the prohibition can be argued and justified on the grounds of security when the criterion is completely arbitrary – distinguishing between people based on their ethnic-national group.
20. Second, even if there are legitimate goals that the movement prohibitions seek to promote, the military commander has a range of alternatives to attain these goals. Even if the available alternatives are inadequate for full attainment of the goals, but only most of them, an alternative should be adopted that would not so grievously harm the way of life of tens of thousands of civilians.
21. Third, this violation of human rights is so severe, one can only conclude that the prohibition is illegal if only because of the unreasonable balance between the severity of the damage and the security advantage sought by it.
22. Fourth, this matter concerns directives that are illegitimate if only for reasons of discrimination on a national-ethnic basis. These movement prohibitions are imposed because and only because of the ethnic-national affiliation of the individual. As noted, the prohibitions are imposed on Palestinians as such (with the exception of Palestinians who live in the closed area), and only because of their belonging to that group, and they are not imposed on Israelis at all.
23. Fifth, various Israeli plans have been revealed over the years concerning the future of the Jordan Valley (including plans to annex the region and plans to construct an eastern fence that would separate the Jordan Valley from the rest of the West Bank). In this context, there is a concern that the prohibitions on the movement of West Bank residents into the Jordan Valley were imposed for extraneous considerations.
24. Sixth, in light of the fact that the prohibitions were taken against an entire civilian population, they are illegitimate if only because they constitute collective punishment, which is absolutely forbidden by International Humanitarian Law (Art. 50 of the Hague Conventions; Art. 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Art. 75(2)(d) of the First Protocol Appended to the Geneva Convention).
25. In light of all the above, the directives that cut off the Jordan Valley region from other areas in the West Bank, and impose various restrictions on the movement of residents of the closed area and other West Bank residents, are illegal and illegitimate because of their lack of authority as well as their profound lack of reasonableness and proportionality.
Under these circumstances, we write to you in your capacity of holding overall responsibility for security to issue instructions as required to rescind the said directives.
Yours very truly,
Limor Yehuda, Attorney
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
