The Mass Deportation of 1992

1 January 2011

In December 1992, Israel deported to South Lebanon 415 Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories, some for one year and others for two years. The decision to deport was reached after several Israel security force personnel were killed by Palestinians. The cabinet's decision and the deportation order issued pursuant to it state that the deportation is to be carried out immediately without granting the deportees the right to be heard prior to execution of the deportation.

Chronology of The mass deportation

In the first two weeks of December 1992, six members of the Israeli security forces were killed by Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories. One of them was a Border Policeman, Nissim Toledano, who was kidnapped on 13 December by Hamas. After finding Toledano's body, Israel arrested some 1,600 Palestinians. On 15 December, Prime Minister Rabin announced that the Israeli government intended to take severe action against Hamas.

On the morning of 16 December, the government decided to order deportation for up to two years of "inciters, those inhabitants of the area who endanger human lives by their activities, or those who incite others to such actions." The deportations were to be carried out "without prior notification."

The security forces began carrying out the deportations that evening, while two deportation orders were being issued in the West Bank and three in the Gaza Strip. More than 400 Palestinians were put on buses and taken north, towards south Lebanon, handcuffed and blindfolded. Most of the deportees were taken directly from prison facilities, where they had been held since the wave of arrests; the remainder were taken from their homes.

The IDF censored publication of any information regarding the deportation decision and its execution, the idea being to move the deportees to Lebanese territory that night, before the matter could be brought before the High Court of Justice. In spite of the censorship, news of the intended deportations reached human rights organizations and attorneys, and that night, several petitions were filed with the High Court. Justice Aharon Barak issued a temporary injunction prohibiting continuation of the deportations, stopping the convoy.

The hearing on the petitions before the High Court began at 5:00 A.M. before three justices. The hearing was subsequently continued before a seven-judge panel. During the hearing, thirty-five of the deportees were taken off the buses and returned to prison or their homes. Thirty-two other Palestinians were placed on the buses in their stead.

After a fourteen-hour hearing, during which hundreds of the deportees remained on the buses with their hands tied behind them and their eyes covered, the High Court, five justices ruling in favor, approved the government's decision. The deportation was carried out the same day, 17 December. The hearing on the legality of the deportation was postponed.

The deportees were transported to the Zumriyeh crossing point at the northernmost point of the "security zone". Because the Lebanese army prevented the deportees from continuing north, and because Israel claimed that it was not responsible for the deportees on grounds that the deportees were in territory under Lebanese control, the deportees were left in no-man's land.

On 28 December, the IDF Spokesperson announced than ten of the deportees had been deported by mistake and would be allowed to return to the Occupied Territories. On 3 January 1993, Attorney General Yosef Harish informed the High Court that six additional Palestinians had been deported by mistake and would be allowed to return. Five more deportees were allowed to return for health reasons.

On 17 January, the High Court began hearings on the petitions against the deportation. On 28 January, the seven justices unanimously ruled that Order Concerning Temporary Deportation (Emergency Provision), on the basis of which the Regional Commanders had decided upon the deportation, was not valid. However, given that the deportation was grounded in regulation 112 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 as well, the deportation was valid. The High Court ruled that while the right to a hearing should have been granted prior to the deportation, the hearing may be postponed in exceptional cases. The state must allow every deportee who files an appeal to personally appeal before the advisory panel. The High Court also ruled that the deportation order was not a collective order, but rather a collection of personal orders.

Following an agreement between Israel and the United States made in February 1993, Israel agreed to shorten the period of the deportations and to allow the deportees to return.

Criticism of the mass deportation

The Israeli defense authorities did not contend that the deportees were responsible for or participated in the attacks on IDF soldiers, which was the pretext for the deportation. The High Court of Justice chose to deny the illegality of the mass deportation, relying on outdated defense regulations, and ignoring the arbitrary, hasty, and negligent manner in which it was carried out. The High Court accepted the government's position in toto that "security needs", which were neither proven nor established in court, are to be preferred over every other consideration.

Deportation of persons from their homeland is a flagrant violation of human rights. In deporting the Palestinians, Israel unilaterally ignored its obligation to persons under its control. Such a violation cannot be justified in light of the violent acts committed by Palestinians in 1992. It is precisely in "emergency situations" that a state's commitment to human rights is tested. Unfortunately, Israel failed this test in December 1992.

Collective punishment, i.e., the punishment of individuals or groups for actions not specifically attributed to them, is forbidden under Israeli and international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that, "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.... Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited".

An examination of the facts reveals that, contrary to the contention made by the state, the deportation of 1992 was collective punishment:

1. The decision-making process: The regional commanders acted under government pressure to deport a large number of persons suspected of being members of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, which affected their ability to carefully deliberate concerning each candidate for deportation. The deportation was carried out according to unclear and sweeping criteria, and not on a specific act performed by the particular individual.

2. Nature of the orders In their form and content: The five deportation orders were clearly collective, and the names of the deportees were set forth in a list attached to the general order. The orders contained no reference to information pursuant to which the decision was reached to deport each of the deportees. The five orders stated uniform grounds for the deportation: "Due to their membership and activities in the area in the framework of the Hamas organization or the Islamic Jihad organization in a manner that severely harms the security in the area and the public order".

3. Cancellations, Mistakes, Contradictions, and Confusion: One out of every four Palestinians deported pursuant to the deportation orders was found to have been included in error, and his deportation cancelled. Some of the Palestinians whose deportations were portrayed as a security necessity before the High Court of Justice were not deported because of "organizational problems," the deportation of some were recognized as having been made "in error" and Israel allowed them to return, and other Palestinians were deported - or not deported - by mistake or contrary to the earlier position taken by the security authorities. Some of the deportees were not included in the lists attached to the orders.

The decision to deport was taken hastily, based on unclear and sweeping criteria, and under pressure of time and quantity. Mass deportation orders, in which no individual reasons were given, were signed at night, some after the deportation was underway. Unlike High Court hearings on deportations in the past, names were not mentioned during the lengthy hearing and there was no discussion of any specific deportee. Instead, numbers were mentioned.

On December 16 and 17, deportation orders were issued against 486 Palestinians. In the High Court of Justice hearing on 17 December, the IDF Chief of Staff convinced the justices of the vital necessity to deport 418 Palestinians. Four hundred and fifteen were actually deported. During the hearing, the justices did not review the list of the deportees, because the list was not then available to the Chief of Staff. Within two weeks, ten "errors" were reported and six more followed.

On 28 January 1993, the High Court of Justice approved the deportations of 399 Palestinians, only some eighty percent of the original number. The High Court accepted the State's claim that weighty considerations necessitated the deportation of each and every one of those 399 persons, without taking into account the absence of the very same considerations concerning eighty-seven others.

Suggested items

The community school destroyed by settlers. Photo: Omri Eran Vardi, 16 Dec. 2023

The South Hebron Hills

Expulsion of Khirbet Zanutah community

In October 2023, the community was home to 27 families, numbering 250 people in total, including some 100 minors. After the war broke out on 7 October 2023, the residents suffered threats and harassment by armed settlers, and sometimes by soldiers who ordered them to leave. Armed settlers repeatedly arrived in cars or ATVs and threatened to hurt residents unless they left. On 12 October, 10 armed settlers arrived in two cars at three homes in the community, hit residents, including with firearms, threatened them, smashed solar panels, destroyed a car door and then left. On 23 October, two settlers arrived at the Samamrah family’s home, pushed the mother, Hanaa Abu al-Kabash, drained two water tanks and left. On 24 October, settlers arrived again, attacked residents with stones, smashed solar panels and windows in one home, and drained water tanks. On 25 October, some of the residents left the community. On 27 October, four settlers arrived in a car, harassed residents who were sitting outside their home, ordered them to stop filming the incident and threw a stun grenade at them. The residents were forced to go back inside. Following this attack, the rest of the residents decided to leave and by the end of October, no one was left. On 4 December 2023, an Israeli activist arrived at the site where the community lived with foreign journalists. They discovered settlers had destroyed 10 residential structures, an agricultural structure and the school. BackgroundThe residents of Khirbet Zanutah, a community that lay in the southwestern Hebron Hills, made their living as shepherds. For several generations, they lived in naturally formed caves to which they added stone entrances. During the 1980s they began building stone houses and temporary structures. There is an archeological site in the village and an ancient mosque that have been marked as such during the British mandate era. In 2007 the Civil Administration issued demolition orders for most of the village structures for having been built without permits. However, no master plan was ever drawn up for this village, so there was no plan on which building permits could be sought. The Civil Administration justified the absence of a plan, arguing that the village was too small to have a master plan prepared for it – and that the distance from the village to the nearest town, a-Dhahiriya, is too great.In November 2007, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed a petition to the High Court of Justice on behalf of the villagers, submitting the villagers’ objections to the demolition orders issued by the Civil Administration for 22 structures in the village, which include residences, sheep pens and a donkey shed. The court issued an interim injunction prohibiting implementation of the demolition orders. In May 2012, at the request of ACRI, the interim injunction was expanded to include other demolition orders issued to six residences, three cisterns and two sheep-pens in the village.Palestinian women, Khirbet Zanutah, South Hebron Hills, 3 May 2012. Photo: B'Tselem.On 30 July 2012 the petition was heard. The justices instructed the state representatives to present an alternative solution for the village residents and to advise the court within 30 days whether the state intends to submit a plan that would enable and regulate construction in the village.In its response, finally filed in late 2013, the state proposed that the petitioners submit a plan to relocate the village to Area A, near the town of a-Dhahiriya. From 2014 to 2017, the court held several hearings in which the state repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of allowing the village to remain in its current location. In a hearing held in early 2017, the state announced that it is willing, at present, to hold back from implementing the demolition orders issued for the structures covered by the petition, as it is formulating new planning criteria that may also affect the village. The state asked the court to strike the residents’ petition and, despite the petitioners’ objections, the court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. The judges stated that the existing demolition orders for Khirbet Zanutah would not be carried out until the state finishes formulating its criteria. The court prohibited the villagers from erecting any new structures and ordered the state to give the petitioners 30 days notice, should it decide to implement any demolition orders in the future. As Khirbet Zanutah does not receive educational services, the villagers have had to build a primary school with financing by a humanitarian aid organization, despite the court order against new construction. The school was completed on 25 March 2018. On 9 April, the Civil Administration demolished the school, which had 33 students ranging from first to sixth grade.

1 January 2013

Khirbet Susiya, village under threat of demolition. Photo: Ann Pack, Activestills.org, 15 June 2012

The South Hebron Hills

Khirbet Susiya – a village under threat of demolition

The Palestinian village of Khirbet Susiya has existed in the South Hebron Hills at least since the 1830s. Its residents have traditionally earned a living from shepherding and growing olive trees. In 1983, the Israeli settlement of Susiya was established near the village, on Palestinian land that had been declared state land by Israel. In 1986, about 25 families were living in Khirbet Susiya, in caves and structures. That year, the Civil Administration declared the village’s land an “archeological site”; the land was confiscated “for public purposes” and the Israeli military expelled its residents from their homes. Having no other option, the families relocated to other caves in the area and to flimsy wood frame shelters and tents they erected on agricultural land a few hundred meters southeast of the original village and the archeological site. The military expelled the residents again several times, most recently in July 2001, shortly after Palestinians killed Israeli Yair Har Sinai, a resident of the Susiya settlement. During the expulsion, carried out without warning, soldiers destroyed residents’ property, demolished their caves and blocked up water cisterns. In September 2001, further to a petition by the residents to Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) filed by Attorney Shlomo Lecker, the HCJ issued an interim order that prohibited further destruction pending a ruling on the petition. Ancient village of Susiya, South Hebron Hills, 17 November 2010. Photo: Yoav Gross, B’Tselem. In the following years, pending a ruling, the residents had to deal with an impossible reality. On the one hand, they had to erect homes and structures for their livestock after the military destroyed their previous ones; on the other hand, the Civil Administration refused to prepare a master plan for the village that would enable its residents to build homes legally and connect to the water and power grids, and rejected residents' applications for building permits. The people of Khirbet Susiya were left no choice but to build temporary buildings and residential tents. The Civil Administration then issued demolition orders for the new structures which, they alleged, were not covered by the interim order. In June 2007, the HCJ decided to vacate the petition, without making a ruling. The Civil Administration continued to issue demolition orders for dozens of structures in Khirbet Susiya. Over the years, the residents filed further petitions in an attempt to prevent the demolitions and plan the village legally, but the justices refused to prohibit the demolition. In 2011 the Civil Administration demolished 10 residential structures in the village, six structures used for making a livelihood and four wells. Planning attempts by villagers blocked Currently about 250 people live in Khirbet Susiya on a regular basis, and some 100 others live in it for part of the year, as their livelihood is seasonal. In late 2012, Israeli NGO Rabbis for Human Rights submitted a master plan for the village to the Civil Administration, on behalf of the residents. In January 2013, the state notified the HCJ that the Civil Administration was evaluating the plan and that, until a decision was reached, demolition orders for that land would not be carried out. In October 2013 the Sub-Committee for Planning and Licensing of the Civil Administration’s Supreme Planning Council rejected the proposed master plan. Among its reasons for rejecting the plan, which together conveyed a patronizing and unprofessional approach, the Civil Administration argued that the significant scattering of the small villages – including Susiya – in the greater Yatta area results in such high expenses for the provision of education, welfare, religion and health services that the funds of the town of Yatta are insufficient to adequately provide them. This is remarkable given that the Civil Administration itself supports the legalization of dozens of tiny illegal settler outposts scattered throughout the West Bank, and has refused to connect the Palestinian village to water and power supplies. Demolition of residential tent and shack, Khirbet Susiya, South Hebron Hills, 24 November 2011. Photo: Nasser Nawaj'ah, B'Tselem. The Civil Administration representatives further argued that authorizing the plan would perpetuate the village’s existing social fabric based on clan kinship, thereby barring individuals, and especially Palestinian women, from enjoying the benefits urban life has to offer, such as social mobility skills, job opportunities and cultural and educational empowerment: The structure of urban life means meeting new people, bringing people closer to one another; it multiplies opportunities and broadens the horizons of each and every person within his family, his tribe, and society at large. Therefore, we see the current plan as yet another attempt to keep a poor, downtrodden population from advancing; from choosing between partial income and other resources; it is an attempt to prevent the Palestinian woman from breaking the cycle of poverty and depriving her of educational and professional opportunities. Similarly, by sentencing the Palestinian child to life in a small, stultified village with no means for development, the plan keeps the child from being aware of all the opportunities available to any other person. It is our recommendation that the plan be rejected out of hand. The Civil Administration recommended that the people of Susiya make an alternative plan for a location closer to the town of Yatta. As Susiya lies mere kilometers from Yatta, which is in Area A, the recommendation effectively means transferring the residents of Susiya out of Area C. In February 2014, Israeli NGO Rabbis for Human Rights petitioned the HCJ, arguing that the Sub-Committee for Planning and Licensing had made an unreasonable decision in rejecting the master plan. The petitioners requested that the HCJ issue an interim order preventing the authorities from demolishing the village pending a ruling on the petition. In late March 2015, the state submitted its response, requesting the court reject the petition, claiming there was no justification for intervening in a justified decision by the planning institutions to reject the plan. In their response, the representatives of the state noted that the villagers have continued to build structures illegally. In early May 2015, Justice Sohlberg struck the residents’ request on the grounds that illegal construction had continued in the village after the petition was filed, actions that he termed “taking the law into their own hands”. Justice Sohlberg added that “the Court has noted the willingness of the authorities in the area to work towards examining promotion of an alternative planning cluster”. Talks between the state and Khirbet Susiya then began, and were underway until suspended by the state. On 1 August 2016, at a court session of Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ), counsel for the state said the talks were halted because the new Minister of Defense had yet to formulate his position on the matter. The HCJ gave the state two weeks to formulate its position. Justices Naor, Barak-Erez and Hayut declined to issue orders that the state not demolish the homes of Susiya residents pending formulation of the position. The residents were thus left in a state of uncertainty as to their future and at the mercy of Israeli authorities. Since the residents of Khirbet Susiya filed their last petition in 2014, the state has announced its intention to demolish several structures built in the village after the petition was filed – including structures renovated after they were damaged in a storm and a medical clinic that serves the entire village. On 1 February 2018, the President of the Supreme Court decided that the state could demolish seven structures in the village, which serve 42 people – about half of them children, and some of them ill persons – immediately. The state has been required to submit its position on the village’s master plan by 7 May 2018. Palestinian resident of the village of Susiya, South Hebron Hills, 15 June 2012. Photo: Anne Paq, Activestills.org. Settler takeover of Susiya land During 2001 and 2002, Israeli settlers established a number of illegal outposts on some of the land that in the past had served the Palestinian residents. Furthermore, since the demolition of Khirbet Susiya in 2001, settlers from Susiya and its outposts have prevented continuous access by villagers to about 300 hectares of land around the settlement, including 23 water cisterns. Access was prevented by use of threats and violence, including vandalizing pastures, fields, trees and cisterns, and harassing shepherds. The settlers exploit the inability of the Palestinian residents to reach their land in order to take over some of it. In the summer of 2010 they cultivated about 40 hectares, which is approximately 15 percent of the land area to which they denied Palestinians access. When police files were opened in response to complaints lodged by the Palestinians for this damage, most were closed without effect. Based on follow-ups Rabbis for Human Rights have carried out since 2007, nearly all 126 complaints to the police in Hebron made by Khirbet Susiya residents - alleging attacks, threats, incursions and damage to property by settlers - were closed without filing any charges; three complaints are still being investigated. From 2004 through 2012, B’Tselem monitored 15 complaints to the police regarding settler violence against Khirbet Susiya residents, including physical assault, setting fire to tent dwellings and belongings, threats, cutting down olive trees, stealing crops and other property damage. In 12 of the 15 cases, the investigation was closed on grounds of insufficient evidence or offender unknown. In August 2010, 55 of the village’s Rabbis for Human Rights filed an HCJ petition on behalf of the residents, seeking to be allowed, inter alia, daily access to their land. In response to the petition, the state notified the HCJ in October 2010 that the military and the Civil Administration intended to map the ownership of land in the area and then, accordingly, instruct the forces in the field as to how to deal with the need to allow access to the agricultural plots. Up until mid-May 2013, the military had issued only four orders, barring settler access to an area of 41.7 hectares – only about 13 percent of the land to which Palestinian residents had been denied access – and, in practice, reversed only one incursion by settlers, removing them from a plot the size of about one-third of one hectare (3.5 dunams). The prevention of access to some 87 percent of the area continues. On 2 February 2014 the HCJ vacated the residents’ petition on prevention of access and incursions made into their lands, on the grounds that the petition is non-specific and encompasses separate concerns of ten different families. In their ruling, the justices did address the military commander’s obligation to safeguard personal property and prevent incursions, yet refrained from ruling on the matter. They recommended that each family file an independent petition.

19 August 2012

Cave home in Khirbet Jenbah. Photos by Osnat Skoblinski, 23 March 2016

The South Hebron Hills

The region of the South Hebron Hills is in Area C of the West Bank, under full Israeli control. Israel’s policy there threatens the continued existence of some thirty Palestinian villages. The region, part of which is also known as Masafer Yatta ("Greater Yatta," namely the villages surrounding the city of Yatta), is home to approximately 4,000 people most of whom earn their living as farmers and shepherds. Israel's Policy: Preventing Palestinian Construction in Area C The policy of the Civil Administration is to prevent construction in nearly all Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills. One way this is done is by not preparing master plans that would enable the legalization of existing construction as well as future development. House demolition, al-Mufaqarah, South Hebron Hills, 24 November 2011. Photo: Nasser Nawaj'ah, B'Tselem. The Civil Administration maintains that the master plan in force is the one approved by the British mandatory authorities in 1942. Under that master plan, the area was zoned for agricultural use. However, although the plan does permit some construction on agricultural land, the Civil Administration has misinterpreted the plan’s instructions and has forbidden any and all construction. Some 30 Palestinian villages – home to approx. 4,000 people, mostly farmers and shepherds – are currently facing the threat of displacement, as part of the Israeli policy to dispossess Palestinians and use the land for the benefit of Israel. Without approved construction plans, Palestinians are denied any possibility of obtaining building permits, be it for housing or for public buildings such as schools and medical clinics. Nor can they get approval for paving proper roads. In addition, the Palestinians may not hook up to either the power grid or the water pipelines that Israel has laid in the area, even though Israel has connected the settlements to both – including the so-called outposts that were constructed without the proper permits. Although the Civil Administration has prepared several master plans for Area C West Bank Palestinian villages, these plans were in fact aimed at obstructing the possibility of development for those villages. For example, in the early 1990s the Civil Administration prepared a plan for the village of a-Tuwani in the South Hebron Hills. In 2009 the plan was updated and the area it covered was expanded. Contrary to the stipulations in the Jordanian planning and construction law to which Israel is bound, the plan was prepared without a prior planning survey that presents the needs of the village. The Civil Administration plan allocated only 52 dunams [5.2 hectares] to the village and allocated no land at all for future development. Moreover, the plan did not include the entire built-up area of the village so that, if implemented, some existing houses would be detrimentally affected. Meanwhile the Civil Administration plan allocated 385 dunams [38.5 hectares] to the nearby settlement of Ma’on irrespective of the similarly sized populations of the two communities. Furthermore, the plan apparently discounts the fact that a-Tuwani, with its school and medical clinic, services all the surrounding villages. Over the past year, the Civil Administration has argued that it cannot approve construction plans in the South Hebron Hills, because they do not meet the planning criteria it has stipulated for the legalization of construction for Area C Palestinian villages. These criteria address the size of the built area; the age and density of construction; proximity to existing communities, nature preserves or archeological sites; and the feasibility of constructing public buildings and infrastructure. These criteria are intended primarily to impede construction in Palestinian villages. They do not take into account the complex structure of land ownership, the history of Palestinian residence on the land (documented at least as far back as the nineteenth century) or the residents’ independent ability to construct public buildings to serve the neighboring Palestinian communities. These criteria do not apply to Israeli settlements in the West Bank for which there is a separate planning track. The construction plans for the settlements in the area, for which the Civil Administration made the necessary changes to the British plans, granted the settlers substantial tracts of land for agricultural use and future development. Moreover, the Civil Administration has not enforced planning and construction legislation in the settlement outposts in the area: Northwest Susiya, Avigayil, Mitzpe Yair, Havat Ma’on, Nof Nesher, Asael and Sansana. These outposts were all established without building plans and without any land allocation. Some were even built on private Palestinian lands. Water Mekorot, the Israeli national water company, has laid out water pipelines in the South Hebron Hills to supply water to the settlements and outposts and to their agricultural enterprises: dairies, greenhouses and vineyards. The pipelines pass near the Palestinian villages in the area but, with the exception of Khirbet a-Tuwani, the Civil Administration has not hooked up any other village to the water grid. The local Palestinians collect water in cisterns: both rainwater and water they purchase from water trucks. However, the Civil Administration has issued demolition orders for many of the cisterns, alleging that they were constructed without permits, notwithstanding that some of them have existed since the days of the British mandate. Several factors, namely, the absence of a local water supply infrastructure, low annual rainfall in the South Hebron Hills and ongoing desertification, have resulted in very low water consumption in these Palestinian villages, averaging as few as 28 liters per capita per day. This level of consumption is similar to levels in humanitarian crisis areas elsewhere in the world, in places such as Darfur, Sudan. For the sake of comparison, the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 100 liters per capita, per day. Average daily water consumption per capita among Palestinian West Bank residents is 73 liters, whereas consumption in rural areas in Israel as well as in the Israeli settlements in the South Hebron Hills is 211 liters per capita per day, an amount 7.5 times that of the neighboring Palestinian communities. Palestinian boy drawing water from a cistern, Khirbet Jenbah, South Hebron Hills, 7 August 2012. Photo: B'Tselem. The local Palestinians buy water transported by trucks that usually come from the Palestinian city of Yatta. The price of water depends on how far the truck must travel from Yatta to its destination. Consequently, prices range from NIS 35 (US$10) per cubic meter in Susiya – more than four times the price of water for residential use in Israel – to as much as NIS 50 per cubic meter in Khirbet Jenbah, a village relatively distant from Yatta, which can be reached only by a long, bumpy dirt road. These high prices mean that local Palestinians may spend as much as a third of their monthly income on water. In contrast, in Israel, the average family spends only 1.3 percent of its monthly income on water. Alternative Energy Sources Israel does not authorize Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills to hook up to the electric power grids it installed for the Israeli settlements and settlement outposts. Permission is not granted even when the electric cables are only a few dozen meters away from the villages. In 2008, the Israeli-Palestinian organization Comet-ME began introducing alternative energy to the villages. Comet-ME is supported by the German government and works with Danish and Swiss NGOs. Since 2008 it has been installing energy devices such as solar panels and wind turbines, and these supply power to a population of 1,300 people in 18 villages. The devices supply the basic electric needs of the villages using the clean, renewable energy sources of the sun and the wind. The use of alternative energy sources does not cause pollution like diesel-powered generators or kerosene stoves. Each family in the village is allotted electricity based on its relative size, and the villagers pay for it accordingly. Solar panels constructed by Comet-ME supply electricity to residents of Khirbet Susiya, South Hebron Hills; Israel refuses to connect the village to water and power grids, 13 June 2012. Photo: B'Tselem. Alternative energy enables lighting at night in residential areas, increasing residents’ sense of security. It also enables the villagers to operate electric butter churns and washing machines, to refrigerate their sheep cheese, and to charge their cellular phones – instead of relying on generators or traveling to Yatta. Since the beginning of 2012, the Civil Administration has issued demolition orders for these energy facilities in seven villages– a-Tha'lah, Khirbet Wadi Ejheish, Haribat a-Nabi, Mantiqat She’b al-Baten, Qawawis, Khirbet a-Safai al-Foqa and Susiya. The orders have not been carried out to date. The Palestinians who live in the South Hebron Hills are frequently the victims of violence perpetrated by residents of the nearby Israeli settlements. The violence escalated with the establishment of the Havat Ma’on settlement outpost in 1997 and then in 2000, with the outbreak of the second intifada. The Israeli authorities – military and police – generally do not intervene in these violent incidents and generally fail to exhaust the investigative means necessary for enforcing the law on violent settlers. Settlers attack elderly Palestinian shepherds, Khirbet Susiya, South Hebron Hills, 8 June 2008 Violent incidents include the following: attacking Palestinians in their living areas and attempting to burn down their tent dwellings; attacking shepherds as well as Israeli and international activists who accompany the villagers; vandalizing or chopping down olive trees and fruit trees; burning grain; setting dogs on people; stealing and harming sheep. Attacks of this type – which escalate during planting and harvesting – make it difficult for villagers to get their herds to pasture and restrict their access to their agricultural plots and water cisterns. Since 2004, schoolchildren who live in in the area declared a firing zone and who attend elementary school in a-Tuwani are accompanied every day by Israeli soldiers and international volunteers, who protect them from the residents of the Havat Ma’on outpost.

1 January 2013