ANNEX 2C

REPORT ON THE AL AQSA UPRISING 2000 

• Comments of the PHRMG on the response of the Israeli Army spokesperson

 

The PHRMG would first like to respond to the Israeli army’s claim that our report is biased, since it relies only on Palestinian sources. Although we did not quote extensively from independent reports produced by such recognized international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International[1], Physicians for Human Rights[2] or Human Rights Watch[3], we are well aware of the fact that these reports only confirm the excessive use of force by the Israeli army, and thus reinforce our conclusions.

The “tremendous restraint” demonstrated by the Israeli army has so far resulted in the death of over 250 Palestinians, the injury of thousands, the shelling of houses and civilian facilities, the destruction of agricultural land, and other measures detailed in the report.

This claim of the excessive use of force by the Israeli army is vigorously denied in their response, where they affirm that force has only been used proportionally to the threat that the Israeli forces faced. The Israeli army further states that the life of soldiers has been threatened on a daily basis. This claim however is dubious in light of the fact that almost no Israeli soldier has been killed in the confrontations where the majority of Palestinian casualties have fallen. As stated in our report, Israeli casualties have fallen in ambushes or terror attacks, where they did not face demonstrators.

Moreover, although the use of water cannons may indeed be inapplicable in certain situations, the PHRMG does not consider that this fact explains the use of such powerful weapons as helicopters and tanks. Other non-lethal weapons should always be favored, especially since helicopters can hardly “save Palestinian lives”, as stated in the letter from the Israeli army.

The Israeli army further denies that its soldiers target the upper body of demonstrators. However, the significant number of injuries to the upper body is hardly reconcilable with this claim, and a report by Israeli journalist Amira Hass[4] indicates that sharpshooters indeed receive instructions to shoot to kill, by targeting the head of demonstrators.

Finally, the Israeli army maintains that curfews and closures are implemented only “due to security necessities”. The PHRMG does not really understand what “security necessities” are at stake, since the closure has long proven ineffective to prevent terror attacks inside Israel. Sealing off entire areas for the sake of a few Jewish settlers seems a very unbalanced policy. Furthermore, in spite of the Israeli army’s claim that humanitarian supplies are not affected by this closure, several areas do suffer from severe shortages of food and medication. The entire Gaza Strip now suffers from shortages of fuel and flour, and meat has long become a luxury.

PHRMG

Jerusalem, 27 November 2000