According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), civilian populations have the right to basic food, clothing and housing 15. Humanitarian law dictates that in times of war, the parties in conflict have a duty to ensure that the population where the fighting is taking place receives food and medical supplies 16. International law prohibits the destruction of property of civilians in occupied territories, "except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."17 It is specifically prohibited to attack or destroy objects indispensable to the survival of the population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas, crops, livestock or drinking water installations 18.

In the West Bank, since March 2001, approximately 15,000 families, comprising nearly 100,000 people, depend on food assistance from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for their subsistence. This is the direct result of the tight closure - the "internal siege" - imposed by Israel on the West Bank, preventing Palestinians from leaving their villages and reaching employment, food markets or medical services. By the end of August, the ICRC had identified 73 villages routinely sealed off by roadblocks and in critical economic condition. The ICRC sometimes sends in convoys as often as once a month. Israel allows such convoys passage and temporarily opens the road, enabling the population to breathe for a few days or a few hours by moving in and out of their village. So far, this assistance has enabled the ICRC to provide the population with a sufficient amount of calories to cover daily needs. But milk products are rare, and the diet provided by available resources lacks protein. This lack of protein could lead in the near future to problems of malnutrition, especially among infants and children. The ICRC is taking the threat very seriously and plans to step up its assistance program.

In Gaza, where the policy of internal siege is no longer in place, shortages of food are not as critical 19. Yet numerous families have been rendered homeless by Israeli shelling and demolition of houses. Through the end of August 2001, the ICRC and UNRWA 20recorded a total of 648 families 21 (close to 6500 people) whose shelter had been totally demolished in this intifada, including 311 in Rafah alone. This number represents only the people who have contacted one of these agencies and have been deemed eligible for assistance. Hundreds of tents, blankets and basic kitchen accessories were distributed. Most of these people were already refugees, who had fled their original villages in Israel to settle in overpopulated refugee camps in the Gaza Strip. Some have now erected their tents on the rubble of their destroyed houses, having nowhere else to go. An additional 50 families/500 people have received such assistance in the district of Hebron in the West Bank, after the Israeli army flattened a string of small villages south of Yatta beginning on 3 July 2001, in retaliation for the killing of an Israeli settler. The Israeli army destroyed houses, sealed water wells; Israeli settlers were reported to have massacred entire flocks of sheep.

In both Gaza and the West Bank, thousands of dunums of agricultural land have been razed by the Israeli army following allegations that olive groves provided shelter to Palestinian gunmen. An olive tree takes between 5 to 7 years to mature and start bearing fruit, and some of the uprooted trees were more than a hundred years old.

Israel argues that both the siege and the demolition of houses are militarily necessary. It is argued that the closure prevents the movements of "terrorists" and thus, terror attacks inside Israel and against Israeli settlers traveling on West Bank roads. But closure has hardly been effective in preventing attacks against Israeli targets within Israel or the West Bank. In the PHRMG's view, the measures are disproportionately harsh, and thus indefensible when thousands of people under siege are threatened by malnutrition. As for the demolition of houses, Israel argues that these houses had become military targets since they were being used to shoot at Israeli positions. Here again, neither the condition of necessity nor proportionality is sustainable. The presence of gunmen among a civilian population does not alter the civilian character of the population. Experience now shows that the destruction of houses does not stop the shooting. On 28 August 2001, as the spotlights were directed at Israeli troops invading Beit Jala, the Israeli army demolished another 15 houses in the Rafah section of the Gaza Strip 22. But the shooting did not stop, either in Rafah or in Beit Jala, it simply moved elsewhere. Demolishing houses does not remove a front-line, it only displaces it. The PHRMG condemns both closure and house demolition as forms of collective punishment, clearly forbidden in international law.

•  15 See Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article. 25, International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) article. 11
• 16 4th Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), article. 55 idem, art. 53
• 17 See Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977), art. 54.2 (only applicable to Israel as customary law)
• 18 Between January and August 2001, UNRWA nevertheless had to distribute over 600'000 food parcels in Gaza, comprising 50 kg flour, 5 kg sugar, 5 kg rice, plus occasionally oil, milk or lentils. "The shortage of food supplies in all incidents was noticed because the families were not given time by the IDF to evacuate their belongings.
• 19 " (Letter from UNRWA to the PHRMG, 20 September 2001)
• 20 United Nations Relief and Works Agency
• 21 349 families supported by the ICRC and 299 supported by UNRWA
• 22 See Ha'aretz, Amira Hass, 29 August and 5 September 2001