The shocking human cost that occupation has taken on Palestinian women is laid bare in research published today. Combining research, extensive surveys, and first-hand testimonies from over 40 Palestinian women, Palestinian Women: The Disproportionate Impact of The Israeli Occupation provides new insight into the gendered experience of occupation, looking into four issues in particular:

• women refugees
• the impact of residency revocation on Palestinian women in Jerusalem
• the experience of women prisoners
• Gazans’ access to health

Co-authored by four Palestinian NGOs – the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH), Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development (PWWSD), the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC), and Women Media and Development (TAM), the report includes detailed findings that demonstrate how the oppression occupation has permeated women’s daily lives, and the particular impact is has had on women in Palestinian refugee camps, Palestinian women living in Jerusalem, women prisoners, and residents of Gaza who require health services.

The impact on refugee women

Researchers spoke to 500 Palestinian refugee women from 12 Palestinian camps (7 in the West Bank, 5 in Gaza). Their findings included the following:

• A third of women surveyed had been directly exposed to physical assault by Israeli Occupation Forces. 9% had been exposed to threats of being attacked by police dogs during Israeli night raids on their homes.
• Over a third (37%) of respondents had been exposed to detention or interrogation, while 38% said that they or members of their households had been exposed to verbal abuse during Israeli army raids, at checkpoints or while visiting religious places.
• Nearly a quarter (24%) were forced to live in shelters or with extended family. 22% were forced to live under unhealthy conditions. 13% stated that the female and male members of their families were separated as a result of having to live in shelters.
• More than one in five (21%) had been exposed to beatings or tear gas at Israeli checkpoints while they were pregnant. 4% reported that they aborted or gave birth at Israeli checkpoints.
• The majority (64%- 321 cases) had been unable to visit religious or recreational places because of Occupation restrictions.

Jerusalem: Residency Revocation and Family Reunification

According to official figures, 14,595 Palestinians from East Jerusalem had their residency status revoked between 1967 and the end of 2016.

Through residency revocations, Israel has separated husbands from wives, parents from children, and extended families from one another, causing traumatic complications for women attempting to remain with their families in both Jerusalem and the West Bank.

This leads to traumatic fears of separation from children for mothers and an entrenching of patriarchal practices across society. Palestinian women living in Jerusalem lose residency rights if they get divorced or their husbands remarry. Limiting their access to justice, female victims of domestic violence fear reporting abuse to authorities in case they are forcibly transferred away from their children.

Women prisoners

Since the beginning of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine in 1967, approximately 10,000 Palestinian women have been arrested and detained by Israeli military forces. According to the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs’ 2017 annual report, 1,467 children were arrested last year.

Our researchers spoke to prisoners who experienced physical and psychological torture at arrest and imprisonment, and traumatic, gendered treatment, including:

• Women denied access to menstrual products while detained
• A woman arrested while pregnant who gave birth while chained to a prison hospital bed
• Ex-prisoners who report being subjected to rape and death threats during interrogation, including a girl in of 15-years old threatened with rape
• Women who were subjected to frequent forced and violent strip searches
• A prisoner who reported toothache, only to have the wrong tooth removed

Access to Health in Gaza

Israel exercises strict control Gaza’s borders, a policy of ‘actual authority’, constituting continued occupation, despite the withdrawal of its permanent presence. This control in particular affects those who need medical treatment outside of Gaza’s struggling health system, who require permission to leave. The report shows that the rate of approval applications is falling year-by-year:

• 92.5% of applications were successful in 2012
• 88.7% in 2013
• 82.4% in 2014
• 77.5% in 2015
• 62.1% in 2016

Of the 26,282 permit applications submitted by patients aiming to exit through Erez in 2016, 8,242 (31.4%) were delayed. Many applicants received no response from border authorities, even after lawyers filed formal applications on their behalf. These delays regularly extend months and years beyond medical appointments, worsening already life-threatening diseases and in some cases resulting in death.

Read the full report here, or download it here:

Palestinian Women – The Disproportionate Impact of the Israeli Occupation

Women represent half of the Palestinian population

The qualitative base of the structure of the population in Palestine the sex ratio stood at 103.3, which means that there are 103 males for every 100 females

The percentage of female-headed households

The percentage of female-headed households in Palestine was 10.6% in 2017, 11.2% in the West Bank and 9.5% in Gaza Strip.

fifth of the persons in Palestine got married at an early age (less than 18 years) in 2016

Early marriage reached to 20.5% among females and 1.0% among males of the total married population in Palestine; the rate was 19.9% out of the total married population in West Bank and 21.6% out of the total married population in Gaza Strip end 2016.

The highest rate of female early marriage in the West Bank was in Hebron 36.8%, and the lowest was in Jericho and the Jordan Valley 1.2% out of the total number of women marriage below 18 years in the West Bank. In Gaza Strip, the highest rate of early female marriage was 42.1% in Gaza Governorate, while the lowest rate was in Dier Al-Balah 7.1% out of the total number of women marriage below 18 years in Gaza Strip.

A continued rise in literacy among women

Despite the rise in literacy rates among females over the last decade, the gap is still in favor of males by 3.0%, female literacy rates was 95.6% compared to 98.6% for male literacy in the year 2017.

Rise in enrollment rate of females in high schools compared to males

Data showed that male enrollment in high schools was 60.5%, compared to female enrollment which was 80.4% for the year 2016-2017.

A gap in the participation rate and average daily wages between men and women

The female participation rate in the labor force was 19.0% of the total female population at work age in 2017, compared to 10.3% in 2001, while the male participation rate was 71.2% in 2017. There was also a pay gap in the average daily wages between males and females; the average daily wage for females was NIS 84.6 compared to NIS 119.6 for males.

Around half of the women are unemployed

The unemployment rate among women participated in the labor force was 47.4% compared to 22.3% for participated males. 65.8% of youth females aged of (15-29 years) were unemployed. While the unemployment rate among women with 13 school years and above represents 53.8% of women in this group.

Palestinian Women in Public Life

In 2017; 21.2% of the members of the local councils are females in the West Bank while 78.8% were males.

In 2016, 82.7% of judges were male, compared to 17.3% female, while 66.6% of registered lawyers were male, compared to 33.4% female and 82.0% of members of the public prosecution staff were male, compared to 18.0% female. Furthermore, Palestinian female ambassadors represented 5.8% compared to 94.2% male. Females represented 32.3% of registered engineers with the Union of Engineers while male represented 67.7%. On the other hand, in 2016, 12.4% of members of student councils in West Bank universities were females, compared to 87.6% males.

In the public sector, females represented 42.7% of civil servants, compared to 57.3% male civil servant. In the public civil sector, female Director Generals represented 11.3% of the total director generals, compared to 88.7% males in the same post.

To View this Report as PDF

To View the Full Statestics as PDF

If you don't understand the Middle East crisis it might be because you are watching it on TV news. This scores high on images of fighting, violence and drama but is low on explanation.

The Glasgow University Media Group interviewed twelve small audience groups (a total of eighty five people) with a cross-section of ages and backgrounds. They were asked a series of questions about the conflict and what they had understood from TV news. The same questions were then put to 300 young people (aged between 17 and 22) who filled in a questionnaire. We asked what came to their mind when they heard the words 'Israeli/Palestinian conflict' and then what was the source of whatever it was. Most (82%) listed TV news as their source and these replies showed that they had absorbed the 'main' message of the news, of conflict, violence and tragedy, but that many people had little understanding of the reasons for the conflict and its origins. Explanations were rarely given on the news and when they were, journalists often spoke obliquely, almost in a form of short-hand. For example, in a news bulletin which featured the progress of peace talks, a journalist made a series of very brief comments on the issues which underpinned the conflict:

Journalist: The basic raw disagreements remain - the future, for example, of this city Jerusalem, the future of Jewish settlements and the returning refugees. (ITN 18.30 16.10.2001)

Such a statement requires background knowledge to be understood. 'Refugees' are cited as a key issue. Our main audience sample of 300 young people were asked where these Palestinian refugees had come from and how they had become refugees? Just 8% knew that the refugees were displaced from their homes and land when Israel was established in 1948. This was, in the words of the Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, the result of a 'Jewish Military Offensive' designed to 'clear the interior of the future Israeli state' and involved the 'forcible expulsion of Arab civilians' (2000:30). Very few knew of this or that shortly after these events a major war broke out between Israel and its Arab neighbours which occasioned more people to flee. Many of the refugees moved to Gaza (which came under the control of Egypt) and to the West Bank of the Jordan river (under Jordanian control). To understand the journalist statement the viewer would need to know that in 1967 Israel fought a further war with its Arab neighbours and in the process of this, occupied Gaza and the West Bank, thus bringing the Palestinian refugees under its military control. East Jerusalem, which has great religious and cultural significance for both Israelis and Palestinians was also occupied (taken from Jordan). These military occupations were bitterly resisted by the Palestinians, not least because Israel built 'settlements' all across the militarily occupied territories. This was much more than simply building houses and farms. As Avi Shlaim suggests they were part of a policy of exerting strategic and military control, by for example 'surrounding the huge greater Jerusalem area with two concentric circles of settlements with access roads and military positions' (2000: 582). The settlements were also built so that they could exploit the crucial resource of water in the occupied territories. It would not have taken long on the news to say that much of the Palestinian economy depended on water and that each Israeli now consumed three times as much water as a Palastinian. Our interviewees knew very little of such matters.

We analysed TV news coverage of the major 'intifada' (or uprising) by the Palestinians, which began in September 2000. We focused on the lunchtime, early evening and late night news on BBC1 and ITN, since these attract very large audiences. The bulletins from 28th September until 16th October 2000 (total of 89 bulletins) were transcribed and the number of lines of text which were devoted to different themes were counted (e.g. how many described fighting / violence, or peace negotiations or explanations of the conflict etc). Of 3536 lines of text in total, only 17 explained the history of the conflict. The key issue of water was barely mentioned. It was apparent that many people did not understand that the Palestinians were subject to a military occupation and did not know who was 'occupying' the occupied territories. On TV news, journalists sometimes used the word 'occupied' but did not explain that the Israelis were involved in a military occupation. It is perhaps not surprising then that many in the audience did not understand the nature of the 'occupation'. In the sample of 300 young people, 71% did not know that it was the Israelis who were occupying the territories. Only 9% knew that it was the Israelis and that the settlers were Israeli. There were actually more people (11%) who believed that the Palestinians were occupying the territories and that the settlers were Palestinian.

So why does the news not give proper explanations of the history and context of events?

One reason is that the news, exists in a very commercial market concerned with audience ratings. Pictures and action dominate and it is better to have great pictures of being in the middle of a riot with journalists ducking stones than to explain what the conflict is about. There is a second perhaps more crucial reason why the TV newsrooms do not dwell on history and origins of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is that to refer to them as under-lying the violence could be very controversial. Israel is closely allied to the United States and there are very strong pro- Israel lobbies in the US and to some extent in Britain. It is clear that a lack of discussion on the news of the origins of the conflict and the controversial aspects of the occupation would operate in favour of Israel. For example, Israel prefers to stress the attacks and bombings made upon it and the anti-semitism of some Islamic groups, rather than to have the legality of its own actions subject to public debate. The settlement policy is widely regarded as illegal in International Law and this has certainly been the view of the British Government. Some newspaper reports consistently refer to the settlements as 'illegal' but this is not done routinely on television news. Without the discussion of origins and causes, we are left with accounts on the news of day to day events, in which it can appear that the 'normal' world is disrupted only when the Palestinians riot or bomb. This is of course the view of the Israeli government and the news tended to oscillate between this and the view that violence was perpetrated by both sides in a 'cycle' of 'tit for tat' killings. The Palestinians believe that they are resisting an illegal and violent occupation. From the Israeli Government view the Palestinian militants are merely terrorists to whom they are 'responding'. There were many examples of the Israeli viewpoint being actively adopted by journalists and built into the structure of coverage. Palestinian bombings were frequently presented as 'starting' a sequence of events which involved an Israeli 'response', as in:

"Dozens of Palestinians and Israelis have been killed in a relentless round of suicide bombings and Israeli counter-attacks." (BBC2 Newsnight 22:30 13/12/01)

On Radio 4 it was reported that "Five Palestinians have been killed when the Israeli army launched new attacks on the Gaza Strip in retaliation for recent acts of terrorism." (07:30 06/03/02)

In another extraordinary exchange on BBC Radio 4, David Wiltshire MP, was asked "What can the Egyptians do to stop the suicide bombers - because that in the end is what is cranking up the violence at present?" He replies, "Well that is one view, the Israeli view?" (17:00 01/04/02)

On Channel Four News a journalist reports that: "the Israelis had carried out this demolition in retaliation for the murder of four soldiers." (10/01/02)

The extent to which some journalism simply assumes the Israeli perspective can be seen if the statements are 'reversed ' and presented as Palestinian actions. The group did not find any reports stating that 'The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation.' The incursions by Israeli forces into Palestinian towns in April 02, occasioned heavy loss of life and much International criticism. On BBC Radio 4 news they were described using the phrase 'there is a determination to carry on until the job is done' (9/4/02). Would Palestinian attacks be described in this fashion? A news journalism which seeks nuetrality should not endorse any point of view, but there were many departures from this principle.

The analysis found other differences in the manner in which Palestinians and Israelis were described in news reporting. Words such as 'murder', 'atrocity', 'lynching' and 'savage cold-blooded killing' were only used to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians. Terrible fates befell both Israelis and Palestinians but there was a clear difference in the language used to describe them. This was so even when the events being described had strong similarities. For example, on 10th of October 2000 it was reported that Arab residents of Tel Aviv had been chased and stabbed. This was described on ITN as "angry Jews looking for Arab victims" (ITN 18.30 10.10.2000) In the Guardian (10.10.2000), these events were described as a pogrom. The reports on television news were extremely brief but two days later when two Israeli soldiers were killed by a crowd of Palestinians there was very extensive coverage and the words "lynching" and "lynch mob" were very widely used. This difference in the use of language is note-worthy. This is especially so since in this period, at the beginning of the intifada, nearly ten times as many Palestinians had in fact been killed as Israelis. The news, on the occasions when it did give figures, stated that more Palestinians had died than Israelis, but only 30% of our sample of 300 young people believed this to be so. The same number believed either that the Israelis had the most casualties or that casualties were equal for both sides.

There were a number of other imbalances in the way in which the two sides were reported. Israelis spoke twice as much on television news as Palestinians and there were three times as many headlines that expressed the Israeli view as that of the Palestinians. The TV news did feature some criticism of Israel particularly for using 'excessive force', but it was clear from our work that such criticism was sometimes muted e.g. a lethal attack by a helicopter gun ship was described using the phrase 'Israel wielded a big stick' (BBC1 1800 4/10/00). More severe criticism emerged from Israel itself, when Shimon Perez, the Israeli Foreign Minister was reported in October 2001 as trying to 'reign in' the Israeli Army which was accused of deliberately seeking to wreck a ceasefire by opening fire on protesters.

The notion that there are powerful forces within Israel who do not wish there to be any peace settlement was rarely explored on television news. This seems also to have forgotten how the present intifada began when Ariel Sharon walked through the most holy Muslim sights, producing wide spread protests. On the first day four Palestinians were reported as shot dead and 150 wounded.

In our research in October 2000, we found that some television news did report that Israeli soldiers were 'showing absolutely no restraint, firing live ammunition into crowds from twenty metres' (ITN 18.00 22.10.2000). But it was not suggested at this time that the actions of the army might be linked to a political agenda (i.e. to stop the peace process). In contrast the view put forward by the Israeli Government at the time that Yasser Arafat was encouraging violence for political ends - was widely reported and discussed on TV news.

The lack of explanation on the news about the origins of the conflict plus the differences in the manner in which both 'sides' were presented had measurable effects on some public understanding. As one eighteen year old in a focus group commented:

"You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news. I always put the blame on them in my own head." (25/05/01)