The following overview has been compiled from various sources and has primarily made use of a number of Issue Briefs prepared by the Congressional Research Service. All sources are listed below.

Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US financial support to Israel has been exceeding the three billion mark per year since 1985, the majority of which is in military aid.

Israel, which is not economically self sufficient and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy, has been the single highest annual recipient of US aid since 1976, and is the largest cumulative recipient of foreign assistance since WWII.

US financial assistance to Israel started in 1949, predominantly in the form of economic aid (%95) and remained so until 1965, during which years, aid to Israel averaged around US$63 million. Military loans began in 1959, albeit modestly, and grew significantly between 1966 and 1970, by which time military loans made up around 47% of the 102 million dollars in aid.

Congress began designating (earmarking) specific amounts of aid to Israel in 1971, and aid to Israel has since then averaged $2 billion per year, two thirds of which went to military assistance. Aid in 1971 changed from specific programs, such as agricultural development to the Commodity Import Program (CIP) for purchases of US goods. The latter was terminated in 1979 and replaced by largely unconditional direct transfers for budgetary support.

1974 saw an emergency aid for Israel to help it following its 1973 war, which included the first military grant. In 1981 all economic aid became grant cash transfer, and as of 1985 all US military aid to Israel was made on a grant basis.

U.S. assistance to Israel consists of predominantly military aid, which makes up for the major part of the aid package to Israel, typically around two thirds of the whole. Military assistance also included the development of arms systems, such as the ARROW anti-missile missile.

Economic assistance has been gradually decreased in favor of an increase in military aid, but still constitutes around one third of the annual financial assistance.

In addition to both these types of assistance, the U.S. has provided Israel with loan guarantees for $10 billion, and has regularly waived the payment of loans due before maturity date.

Profile of aid:

US financial aid to Israel is unique in both its sheer volume and the terms that govern its use. It is characterized by special treatment and a general practice that runs against the rule.

The total amount of aid received by the State of Israel by 1997 was calculated to be a grand total of nearly 85 billion US dollars. That included direct aid grants and loans of around 74 billion US dollars, around 10 billion in other US aid, and around 1.5 billion US$ earned by Israel from interest on advance payments.[1]

These figures however do not reflect the actual cost of US aid to Israel to the American taxpayer, which include another 50 billion in interests borne by the US. The total cost to the American taxpayers is close to 135 billion US dollars.

Translated in per capita terms, the total benefit of US aid per Israeli is about US$ 15.000, the total taxpayer cost per Israeli however is closer to US$ 23.000.[2]

According to Thomas Stauffer, an international oil and finance consultant, much of the US’ aid to Israel is consequential or indirect, and is kept off the government’s budget balance sheet and conventional U.S aid records, thus making it very difficult to put a price tag on the total amount. Furthermore Israel enjoys a “remarkable” spectrum of ad hoc and special forms of aid, which for years has cost the American people billions of dollars in lost trade, contracts, jobs, and business ventures in the Middle East.

Latest aid:

For FY2003, the US administration requested close to $2.8 billion for aid to Israel, $600 million in economic, $2.1 billion in military, and $60 million in migration resettlement assistance.

Reports by Reuters in early January 2003, said that Israel had requested $4 billion in military grants and $8 billion in economic loan guarantees. The military grants were to assist Israel prepare for the war with Iraq and to cover expenses of the Palestinian uprising. The economic loans were urgently needed to help Israel’s struggling economy. The grants and loan guarantees were to be made in addition to Israel’s regular $3 billion in annual foreign assistance.

$200 million in anti-terrorism Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants that were withheld by President Bush in FY2002 were added to the FY2003 foreign operations appropriations bill by the House of Representatives.

1. Use of US economic aid in occupied territories:

US policy in effect categorically prohibits the use of its aid in the Palestinian occupied territories as it does not want to foster the appearance of endorsing Israel’s annexation of the territories without negotiations.

However suspicions that U.S. aid funds have been used by Israel to establish Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are regularly raised.

Israel denies that it uses U.S. funds for settlement activities and in the past have provided an annual letter to the U.S. Agency for International Development stating that the economic funds were used to service Israel’s debt to the United States.

Although Israelis and their supporters strongly oppose any conditions attached to U.S. aid, the US administration has so far not relinquished this primary condition. Secretary of State Baker for example made it clear during a congressional hearing in 1992, that the US administration would not approve Israel’s loan guarantee request until Israel froze settlement activity in the occupied territories including east Jerusalem. The Israeli government led by Rabin had briefly frozen its settlement activity in response, and was subsequently granted the loans.

In a similar case in 1990 the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, David Levy, stated in a letter to the Secretary of State that Israel would not use the housing loan guarantees in the occupied territories, before $400 million in housing loan guarantees and $5 million in additional refugee settlement funds were provided to Israel in the supplemental appropriation for FY1990.

As US economic aid is granted to Israel in the form of direct budgetary support and without specific project accounting it is nearly impossible to determine how Israel used its aid.

Although conditions on aid to Israel have been suggested, such as withholding assistance until Israel stops establishing settlements in the occupied territories, or the reversal of its annexation of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, the US, except for once, has never withheld aid to Israel. The exception was in 1953 when during Eisenhower’s Administration, aid was withheld until Israel stopped a water diversion project in a U.N. demilitarized zone along the Israeli-Syrian boundary.

2. Violation of military related agreements:

The 1952 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement and subsequent arms agreements between Israel and the United States limit the use of American military equipment to defense only. The Arms Export Control Act states that the United States may stop aid to countries which use U.S. military assistance for purposes other than legitimate self defense.”

The Secretary of State has so far reported four times to Congress about possible Israeli violations of the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act and the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, such as in 1978, after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, on August 6, 1979, after a series of Israeli raids into south Lebanon in 1981, after Israel’s bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, as well as in a “secret” letter to Congress in July 1982, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Reports also appeared in February 2001 to the effect that the United States was investigating Israeli misuse of US military equipment during the resurgence of hostilities in the Palestinian occupied territories, specifically the use of Apache and Cobra helicopters, as well as f-16 fighter-bombers in extra-judicial killings of Palestinians leaders and the destruction of Palestinian facilities.

In early June 2001, Members of Congress requested a Government Accounting Office investigation of Israeli use of U.S. F-16 aircraft in attacks against Palestinian facilities.

Israeli violations of the Arms Export Act:

Despite clear conditions attached to US aid prohibiting Israel from supplying third parties with arms without US permission, numerous cases of Israeli non-compliance have so far been recorded. These include,

Technology transfer to China:

Among the more prominent cases of non-compliance has been the Israeli transfer of Patriot missile technology to China without US approval, as had been reported by the Washington Times in early 1992. The Wall Street Journal had also reported that the State Department Inspector-General and U.S. government intelligence agencies had been investigating unauthorized Israeli technology transfers to China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Chile, and other countries.

Israel denied violating U.S.-Israeli agreements on weapons security and transfers, and the State Department later announced that a team that visited Israel found no evidence of an unauthorized transfer of Patriot technology to China. A report by the Inspector-General however stated that Israel did transfer other equipment and technology to other countries without proper U.S. authorization. Reports by major news agencies continued to appear in 1993 saying that Israel sold China billions of dollars worth of military equipment, including U.S. sophisticated technology. The sale according to reports had also transferred Israeli “Lavi” technology, which stems from an Israeli aircraft prototype built with US money and technology.

In 1996 Israel was again making headlines when it signed a contract with China to deliver one Airborne Early Warning and Command and Control (AEW) radar system, mounted on an Ilyushin-76, at a cost of $250 million, with the option order three to seven more. The United States complained that delivery of the AEW to China could endanger Taiwanese and U.S. aircraft if it became necessary to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack, and that the AEW in Chinese hands would create an imbalance in the Asian military picture. Israeli officials stated that they had informed the United States of the deal in 1996, and had received no complaints then, that the AEW was a defensive system, and that Israel needed the income from the sale. An amendment that would have delayed $250 million in military aid to Israel if it did not agree to cancel the sale to China was defeated in the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee by nine to six.[3]

Iran Arms Affair:

Further implications of Israel in illegal arm transfers arose in 1986, when it was reported that the proposal to trade U.S. arms for hostages in Lebanon originated with Israeli Foreign Ministry official David Kimche.

According to the report Israel was involved in facilitating the US-Iranian secret negotiations, and that at least one of the shipments to Iran was made through Israel, possibly at a US request.

Nuclear Weapons detonators:

In 1985 High speed electronic switches that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons, called Krytons, were illegally exported to Israel from by Richard Smyth.

Richard Smyth was indicted in California for illegally exporting 800 Krytons to an Israeli company. Israel subsequently claimed that it was not aware of needed export licenses for the devices, and no further action was taken. Smyth however was arrested by Spanish authorities in 2001, after jumping bail in 1985, and is to face 30 counts of violating the Arms Export Control Act and filing false statements.

Other affairs:

In addition 3 U.S. companies were raided by U.S. customs late 1985, and materials related to metallurgical processes for tank guns, and which were being transferred illegally to Israel seized.

In 1986, 3 Israelis were arrested for conspiring to sell arms to Iran, and another two arrested on another weapons selling scheme.

Also in 1986, 3 U.S. companies were searched by U.S. customs for information about a plan to transfer technical information for cluster bombs to Israel, and a company in Illinois claimed that Israelis tried to steal data on its aerial reconnaissance cameras.

Israel denied connections to any of these cases.

In 1997, an engineer at a military testing admitted an “inadvertent” release of classified materials to Israel over a ten-year period.

3. Israeli Espionage:

In 1985 Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. naval intelligence employee together with his wife Ann Pollard were charged with selling classified documents to Israel for $2,500 per month over an 18-month period. In 1987, Pollard was sentenced to life in prison, and his wife to two consecutive 5-year terms. Four Israelis, including an Air Force Colonel were also indicted

The Israeli government quickly disavowed any knowledge of the spy network, which was headed by Raphael Eitan, a former Israeli intelligence officer, and called it a renegade operation. Despite the publicity the espionage episode received Israel promoted both Raphael Eitan and Aviem Sella, the Air Force Colonel. Israel however rescinded the latter’s promotion after negative U.S. reactions.

Jonathan Pollard was granted Israeli citizenship in 1996, and his wife who was released in 1990 moved to Israel. Israel continues to complain that Pollard received an excessively harsh sentence, and sought his release on a number of occasions, most recently during the 1998 Wye negotiations.

4. “Cranston Amendment”:

The Cranston Amendment named after its Senate sponsor, stated that it was “the policy and the intention” of the United States to provide Israel with economic assistance “not less than” the amount Israel owed the United States in annual debt service payments (principal and interest).

It was added to the foreign aid legislation in 1984 and was repeated each year in the annual aid appropriation bill through FY1998.

For 1998, Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed the U.S. government about $328 million in debt service for direct loans.

5. Israel earning interest on US aid:

Israel unlike any other recipient of US financial aid receive its aid in a lump sum during the first month of the fiscal year, allowing it invest the funds in the U.S. and earn interest on them. The foreign assistance appropriation bill signed on November 5, 1990, provided this special treatment for Israel.

6. Subsidizing Israeli arms industry:

The extensive US military aid to Israel has also been argued to be an effective subsidization of the Israel Arms and Industry, as Israel is permitted under unique terms to commission Israel arms manufacturers using a significant part of the U.S. funds.

According to Stauffer, the United States has poured billions of dollars into Israeli military technology, technology that is in direct competition with that of the U.S., citing the Israeli Lavi fighter program and Arrow missile system as examples.

Israel enjoys large discounts on what are considered “surplus” U.S. arms, and Israeli military firms have the upper hand in relationships with U.S. military firms. U.S. contractors, Stauffer asserted, are required to subcontract Israeli firms for military components, subcontracts that would otherwise have gone to American firms.

Consequential aid:

The United States provides indirect assistance to Israel by helping the Israeli economy, such as through the establishment of a free trade area (FTA) in 1983. The FTA was formally approved in May 1985, and removes virtually all trade barriers in bilateral commerce.

Contributions by Jewish organizations and individuals are another element of consequential aid to Israel. These contributions are estimated to be averaging $1 to 1.5 billion annually, and are tax-deductible.

Special benefits[4] :

Israel receives favorable treatment and special benefits that may not be available to other countries or that may establish precedents for other U.S. aid recipients.

Many of the benefits listed below were reported in a June 24, 1983 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, U.S. Assistance to the State of Israel (GAO/ID-83-51), or in another GAO report, Security Assistance: Reporting of Program Contents Changes, GAO/NSIAD-90-115 of May 1990.

Cash flow financing:

Israel is allowed to set aside FMF funds for current year payments only, rather than set aside the full amount needed to meet the full cost of multi-year purchases. GAO believes that cash flow financing creates a commitment to furnish aid in future years at a level sufficient to meet the future payments.

FMF offsets:

Israel receives offsets on FMF purchases (contractors agree to offset some of the cost by buying components or materials from Israel). Although offsets are a common practice in commercial contracts (countries dealing directly with U.S. firms), GAO said offsets on FMF sales were “unusual” because FMF is intended to sell U.S. goods and services.

Early transfers:

In 1982, Israel asked that the ESF funds be transferred in one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four quarterly installments, as is the usual practice with other countries. The United States says more in interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments. A.I.D officials estimate that it cost the United States between $50 million and $60 million to borrow funds for the early, lump-sum payment. In addition, the U.S. government pays Israel interest on the ESF funds invested in U.S. Treasury notes, according to A.I.D. officials. It has been reported that Israel earned about $86 million in U.S. Treasury note interest in 1991. ! FMF drawdown: Israel was permitted to draw down the grant (waived) portion of its FMF credits before the loan portion, thus delaying paying interest on the loans. Usually, loans and grants are drawn down at an equal rate.

Unique FMF funding arrangements:

Other countries primarily deal with DOD for purchases from U.S. companies for U.S. military items, but Israel deals directly with U.S. companies for 99% of its military purchases in the United States. Other coutries have a $100,000 minimum purchase amount per contract, but Israel is allowed to purchase military items for less than $100,000. According to the GAO report, Israel processed over 15,000 orders for less than $50,000 in 1989, with no DOD review of the purchases as would have been the case with other countries’ purchases.

Other countries have the U.S. government disburse funds to companies directly, but the Israeli Purchasing Mission in New York pays the companies and is reimbursed by the U.S. Treasury. ! FMF for R&D: Israel asked for and received permission for a “one-time-only” use of $107 million in FY1977 FMF funds to be spent in Israel to develop the Merkava tank (prototype completed 1975, Merkava added to Israeli arsenal 1979). Israel asked for a similar waiver to develop the Lavi ground-attack aircraft. In November 1983, Congress added an amendment to the FY1984 Continuing Appropriation (P.L. 98-151) that allowed Israel to spend $300 million of FMF funds in the United States and $250 million of FMF in Israel to develop the Lavi. Between 1983 and 1988, Congress earmarked a total of $1.8 billion (through FY1987) for the Lavi.

GAO reported in January 1987 that the United States provided $1.3 billion of $1.5 billion Lavi development costs between 1980 and 1986.

Loan Guarantees:

Loan Guarantees have been a typical component of US aid to Israel since 1990, when Israel proposed that the United States government provide $10 billion in loan guarantees over 5 years to finance the housing, infrastructure, and jobs needed to settle in Israel an anticipated 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

The US government would underwrite the loans, agreeing to pay the commercial lenders is Israel defaulted.

In 1992, that the US announced that it would support loan guarantees for Israel and the loan guarantees were approved under Title VI, P.L. 102-391, (H.R. 5368) on October 6, 1992.

As the number of immigrants arriving from the former Soviet Union was less then expected initially, Israel has not yet drawn the whole amount available to it, and the loan guarantees are being used for other infrastructure projects as well.

The US administration at the time insisted that Israel stopped building or expanding settlements in the occupied territories before the guarantees would be made. Negotiations among Israel, the White House, and the Senate Appropriations Committee were unable to solve the stalemate caused by Israel’s refusal to comply with the administrations conditions.

Finally Prime Minister Rabin’s announced a freeze on new housing on July 13, which apparently met the Bush Administration conditions for the loan guarantees.

During Sharon’s visit to the White House in October 2002, he reportedly asked for $8 billion in new loan guarantees and an additional $4 billion in military aid, the latter to be used for preparations for the US war with Iraq. President Bush has not yet made a formal request to Congress for the additional funds.

The Loan Guarantees for Soviet and Ethiopian Jewish Refugees have come in the form grants through the Department of State refugee and migration account, which began in 1973 and through the housing loan guarantee and Soviet immigrant loan guarantee programs.

As part of the ongoing grants made through the Department of State and Migration account, President Bush requested $60 million for immigrant assistance for FY2003.

ARROW anti-missile system:

The aid also includes co-operation in weapons development projects like the Arrow anti-missile system, such as Israel’s participation in the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) research, under which it developed the “Arrow” anti-ballistic missile with a U.S. contribution of about $625 million through FY1999.[5]

While the Arrow was conceived as a joint research and development project in which the US and Israel would share technology, and as thus not technically foreign aid, the US army said it would not procure the Arrow for US use, thus practically leaving Israel alone to benefit from the project.

In addition to that, in 1996 President Clinton said that the United States would provide Israel with an additional $200 million for deployment of the Arrow in Israel, and in March 1998, Secretary of Defense Cohen was quoted as saying that the US would provide an additional $45 million for deploying a third battery of Arrow missiles.

President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003. The 2004 budget includes a request for $136 million for the Arrow, of which $66 million is for the improvement program and $70 million is for production.

Other military projects included $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop a high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing).

Oil guarantees:

Another “consequential” cost to the U.S. economy with a potential price tag of $20-30 billion a year is the oil supplies guarantee. Should Israel’s oil supply be cut off, the United States guarantees to provide Israel with oil regardless of U.S. oil supply levels.

Trade Losses:

A hidden cost to the U.S. economy with a direct effect on the American people is trade losses with Israel and with those countries Israel perceives as hostile.

According to Stauffer’s data the United States’ trade deficit with Israel is about $5-5.5 billion. One reason for this is that Israel, for example, can buy textile from China, re-label it, and sell it to the United States duty-free. But the real reason behind the losses, said Stauffer, is the trade imbalance between the United States and Israel. While the United States pays real money for its imports from Israel, Israel does not pay real money for its imports from the United States. The result is an annual trade imbalance of just under $10 billion. In terms of jobs, that comes to about a quarter of a million American jobs lost.

U.S. sanctions on Libya, Syria, Iran, are linked to U.S. policy toward Israel and are costing the U.S. economy about $14 billion annually in potential trade. According to Stauffer’s research these sanctions, which only affect U.S. companies and not their competitors, translate into 500,000 to 600,000 in lost U.S. jobs.

The Israeli lobby in the United States has foiled major U.S trade contracts with Arab and Muslim countries, like the 1980s aircraft sales contract with Saudi Arabia that cost the U.S. economy between $20-25 billion annually.

Waiver of Loan repayments:

While the United States has not actually canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, the U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as loans.

The first U.S. military “grants” actually began in 1974 when the United States waived repayment of part of a military loan, which was asked from Congress by President Nixon.

The waiver of loans before maturity date has effectively become a practice that has continued by successive U.S. administrations since.

Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2002, Israel has received more than $42 billion in waived loans.

Israel perceived advantage from receiving aid in the form of loans rather than grants as it helps it avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program.

Wye Agreement Supplemental aid:

As part of the Wye Agreement that was facilitated by the American administration, Israel received $1.2 billion in military grants in FY2000 for implementing the agreement’s provisions.

The funds which were requested by Israel in addition to the regular U.S. aid were allocated for the movement of troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the agreement.

Despite the fact that Israel was not completing the called for withdrawals the US administration requested $600 million in military aid for Israel for FY1999, and $300 million in military aid for each fiscal year 2000 and 2001.

In November 1999, the US President signed the consolidated appropriations bill, H.R. 3194 (P.L. 106-113), which included, in Division B, passage of H.R. 3422, the foreign operations appropriations bill, after a former House Resolution was vetoed by the president for including the Wye funding.

According to a State Department report presented to Congress in late October 1999, the Wye funding was intended to be used as follows (in millions of dollars):

Reduction of US aid to Israel:

In 1996 Israel announced that it would reduce its need for US aid over the next four years. A proposal was made to gradually reduce the $1.2 billion economic aid over 10 years. The proposal however would increase the military aid by 600 million over the same period. Effectively reducing the total aid received by Israel by $600 only. Military aid to Israel would thus reach an annual $2.4 billion by 2008.

The omnibus appropriations bill signed into law on October 21, 1998, cut Israel’s economic aid from $1.2 billion to $1.08 billion, and increased Israel’s military aid from $1.8 billion to $1.86 billion for FY1999. The FY1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 appropriations bills included cuts of $120 million in economic aid and an increases of $60 million in military aid for each year.

Endnotes

[1]Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. foreign Assistance, Issue Brief for Congress, February 2003
[2] www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html
[3] See CRS Report RS20583, Israel’s Sale of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft to China, May 18, 2000.
[4] Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. foreign Assistance, Issue Brief for Congress, February 2003
[5] Global Security Newswire, March 15, 2002

SOURCES:

Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. foreign Assistance, Issue Brief for Congress, February 2003

Clyde R. Mark, Israeli-United States Relations, Issue Brief for Congress, October 2003

http://http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost_of_israel.html

CRS Report RS20583, Global Security Newswire, March 15, 2002

Economist Tallies Swelling Cost of Israel to US
By David R. Francis
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1555&CategoryId=5

Raiding the U.S. Treasury
By Ronald Forthofer
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3324&CategoryId=5

''Coin of Empire'' too Costly for Israelis, Palestinians and U.S. Taxpayers
By Conn Hallinan
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3323&CategoryId=5

How Much Does America Pay for Supporting the Israelis?
By Tom Stauffer
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3322&CategoryId=5

Israeli-U.S. relations are an important factor in U.S. policy in the Middle East, and Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship. The main vehicle for expressing support for Israel has been foreign aid; Israel currently receives about $3 billion per year in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid. Congress has monitored the aid issue closely along with other issues in bilateral relations, and its concerns have affected Administration’s policies.

U.S.-Israeli relations have evolved from an initial American policy of sympathy and support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in 1948 to an unusual partnership that links a small but militarily powerful Israel, dependent on the United States for its economic and military strength, with the U.S. superpower trying to balance competing interests in the region. Some in the United States question the levels of aid and general commitment to Israel, and argue that a U.S. bias toward Israel operates at the expense of improved U.S. relations with various Arab states. Others maintain that democratic Israel is a strategic ally, and that U.S. relations with IsraeL strengthens the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

The United States fully supported the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles signed in Washington on September 13, 1993, and the follow-up agreements in May 1994, September 1995, the Hebron agreement of January 15, 1997, and the Wye agreement of October 23, 1998, mediated by President Clinton.

Summary

Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. In addition to U.S. assistance, it is estimated that Israel receives about $1 billion annually through philanthropy, an equal amount through short- and long- term commercial loans, and around $1 billion in Israel Bonds proceeds.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told a joint session of Congress on July 10, 1996, that Israel would reduce its need for U.S. aid over the next four years. In January 1998, Finance Minister Neeman proposed eliminating the $1.2 billion economic aid and increasing the $1.8 billion in military aid by $60 million per year during a 10-year period beginning in the year 2000. The FY1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 appropriationsbills included cuts of $120 million in economic aid and an increases of $60 million in military aid for each year.

U.S. aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the United States for previous loans. Israel also receives special benefits that may not be available to other countries, such as the use of U.S. military assistance for research and development in the United States, the use of U.S. military assistance for military purchases in Israel, or receiving all its assistance in the first 30 days of the fiscal year rather than in 3 or 4 installments as other countries do.

In addition to the foreign assistance, the United States has provided Israel with $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow antimissile missile (an ongoing project), $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing), and other military projects. In FY2000 the United States provided Israel an additional $1.2 billion to fund the Wye agreement, and in FY2002 the United States provided an additional $200 million in anti-terror assistance.

For FY2004, the Administration requested $480 million in economic, $2.16 billion in military, and $50 million in migration resettlement assistance.

This fact sheet highlights the main violations monitored and documented by youth human rights defenders in Jerusalem and Hebron in the 2020-2021 period. It includes facts and figures that point to a general systematic Israeli policy to intentionally violate religious freedoms, right to worship, right to education, housing rights, and freedom of movement, in both Jerusalem and Hebron.

Young human rights defenders monitored and documented hundreds of violations committed in Jerusalem and Hebron in 2020-2021.

This paper summarizes the main findings of this documentation through comprehensive data, facts and figures of the perpetrated violations in the areas of operation.

Violation of educational, religious, and housing rights in East Jerusalem and the Old City of Hebron

Right to Education

The right to education is one of the most important rights guaranteed by international conventions and is a common denominator among several United Nations declarations, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Patterns of Violations against the Right to Education in East Jerusalem and the Old City of Hebron:

In the course of preparing its analytical report, MIFTAH documented several patterns of violations committed by Israeli occupation authorities against the Palestinian right to education. Examples include attacks on schools by Israeli forces and settlers, preventing students from reaching their schools due to closures and checkpoints, rise in school dropouts as a result of Israeli measures, and the Israelization of education in Jerusalem.

Attacks on Schools by Israeli Occupation Forces and Settlers in the Old City of Hebron

International humanitarian law is based on a set of fundamental principles put in place to protect civilians, including the protection of civilian venues such as schools. In the “H2” area in the Old City of Hebron, teargas is regularly used by Israeli occupation forces around Palestinian schools, as well as carrying out humiliating inspections of Palestinian students and teachers and exposing them to violence. More than 53 such violations were documented there in 2020, leading to students’ suffering of 263 physical damages and 3,623 psychological damages. It should also be noted that this relative decline in violations compared to previous years was due to the disruption of schools for several months as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Israeli violations in the 2019-2020 period were categorized as follows:-

- The lack of safe access to education has serious implications for children, such as lowering their level of school attendance, increasing school dropout rates, displacement of families, separation of family members as they search for solutions that guarantee their children’s access to school in other locations, etc.

   Such practices, especially those which directly target students, constitute a grave violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the State of Israel. For example, Article (2) of this convention explicitly notes that states parties shall refrain from practicing discrimination of any kind against children, irrespective of their parents’ religion, national origin, political opinion, etc.

- The various practices of Israeli occupation authorities in the Old City of Hebron are an attack on human dignity. For example, the degrading isolation of Hebron’s Old City neighborhoods from adjacent areas, and surrounding them with checkpoints and security gates, made Hebron a large prison for its residents, who live in a state of permanent siege. Moreover, the daily searching of Old City residents at military checkpoints in an inhumane manner - especially children on their way to or from school - is a fierce blow to their human dignity.

- These humiliating practices, which greatly affect the dignity of “H2” residents [in Hebron], constitute a flagrant violation of Article (3)(1)(c) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits all attacks on people’s personal dignity “at any time and in any place, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.

Israelization of Educational Curricula in Jerusalem:

In 2018, the Israeli government allocated 2 billion Shekels to implement a five-year plan to enhance its control and domination over East Jerusalem. The bulk of this amount was allocated to Israelize the Palestinian educational system and curricula, based on a plan that pressures Palestinian schools to move from the Palestinian educational curriculum to the Israeli one.

The Israeli government allocated approximately 68.7 million Shekels for supporting schools that teach the Israeli curriculum, in addition to 57.4 million Shekels for developing and maintaining schools that chose this curriculum. Moreover, 67 million Shekels were allocated for renting buildings for these schools, as well as 15 million Shekels for teaching Hebrew. The Israeli government also focused on building new schools dedicated solely for teaching the Israeli curriculum. This was done in light of the great shortage of classrooms and the dire need for new schools to accommodate the growing Palestinian population in East Jerusalem.

Among the methods used by Israeli authorities to Israelize the educational sector is their changing of the approved curriculums. This took place especially after 2015, when they started obliging Jerusalemite schools to use the curriculums issued by the Israeli Ministry of Education. The Israeli government also distributed the new curriculum books to several “private” schools in Jerusalem. They also threatened that, if any schools do not comply with this decision, they will be closed down and have their teachers terminated. Statistical information in 2019-2020 shows that, in East Jerusalem, there are 50 schools that teach the Israeli curriculum fully or partially or which were established by Israel to adopt the Israeli education system. These 50 schools include about 8,300 students.[1]

The table below shows the number of Israeli distortions and falsifications of the Palestinian curriculum in Jerusalem:

Right to Freedom of Movement

International human rights covenants are keen on protecting people’s right to movement, as seen in the provisions of protection in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In Hebron:

- About 30% of Palestinians in the “H2” area controlled by the Israeli occupation (approximately 12,000 Palestinians) live in neighborhoods adjacent to settlement blocs and suffer from severe restrictions that limit their ability to access this area.

- Currently, there are more 100 physical barriers in this area, including 20 “full-time” checkpoints and 14 partial checkpoints separating settlement areas from the rest of the city. There are also several roads in this area which are designated solely and exclusively for settlers’ use, while prohibiting Palestinian vehicles from traveling in them. There are also streets where Palestinian pedestrians are not allowed to walk on.

- As a result of these heavy restrictions and measures, the residents of one-third of houses in the access-restricted area, totaling 1,105 residential units, have abandoned their houses. Furthermore, the Israeli occupation authorities closed down approximately 500 establishments in this area through military orders, and at least 1,100 other establishments were closed by their owners due to the imposed restrictions.

- Israeli occupation measures constitute a blatant violation of Article (13) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article (12) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the restrictions on people’s freedom of movement seriously affect Palestinian lives and amount to collective punishment, in contravention of Article (33) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Right to Housing:

- From 1967 until the end of June 2021, Israeli occupation authorities demolished approximately 2,350 residential establishments, leading to the displacement of 10,085 individuals, including numerous children.

- According to B’Tselem organization, the year 2020 witnessed the demolition of 121 homes in Jerusalem within the Annexation and Expansion Wall, thus displacing 610 persons, including 311 minors. It is also worth noting that Israel destroyed 83 homes in the first half of 2021, leading to the displacement of 232 persons, including 117 minors.

- The Israeli policy of house demolitions in East Jerusalem is a clear violation of international law, especially Article (147) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article (17) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article (11) of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights.

Freedom to Access Holy Sites:

The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property called upon the High Contracting Parties “to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties, by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage”. International jurisprudence also condemned the desecration of houses of worship and their destruction, sabotage, closure, or any other behavior that damages such sites under occupation. It also obligates the occupying power to respect the religious rights and beliefs of occupied civilians, and to refrain from destroying or plundering houses of worship or disrupting religious rites and rituals therein.

Attacks against Al-Aqsa Mosque and Muslim Worshipers:

Violent attacks usually take place during the frequent incursions on Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the presence of several Israeli government ministers, Knesset members (“MPs”), Israeli officials, soldiers, intelligence officers, settlers, Jewish extremist groups, and so-called Temple organizations. Sieges and restrictions on worshipers are also imposed in Al-Aqsa Mosque. This includes preventing Muslims from entering their mosque; conducting brutal attacks, arrests, and investigations; and issuing bans on hundreds of Palestinians from Jerusalem and 1948 areas.

The following table includes figures about these violations, especially bans, bearing in mind that bans against Palestinians usually range from one week to six months:

One of the worst violations against Al-Aqsa Mosque was the Israeli court order (issued on July 13, 2020) to close down the Bab al-Rahma prayer site. During that period, and following the ensuing events, the number of persons banned from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque reached approximately 150 guards and mourabitoun [defenders of holy sites].

In the first half of 2021, a total of 257 [Israeli] decisions were issued to ban Palestinian residents and Waqf employees from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque. Also, the months of May and June 2021 saw seven raids on Al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli authorities. For example, May 2021 witnessed consecutive incursions on Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Isha and Taraweeh prayers [at night] and after the Fajr prayer [at dawn]. Attacks were carried out on Muslim worshipers “with teargas canisters, stun grenades and rubber bullets, as well as pushing them around and beating them with batons”. During that period, Israeli forces evacuated most of the worshipers by force within a few days, leading to hundreds of injuries, including serious ones. For example, there was the witnessing of several heavy injuries in the eyes, head, and face.

Attacks against Palestinian Christians during Christian Holidays:

- Assaults by Israeli Police personnel and settlers against Christian clergy and worshipers have become quite common in Jerusalem. This includes beatings, spitting, insults and cursing at churches and in different streets in Jerusalem. These violations often take place during Christian holidays, such as the Easter Light Ceremony (“Holy Saturday”), when the Israeli occupation forces close down the Holy Sepulcher Church and perpetrate countless attacks against Christian worshipers. The most recent of these violations was the Israeli Police’s violent attacks on dozens of local Christians during the Holy Saturday prayers in May 2021.

Violations of the Freedom of Worship at the Ibrahimi Mosque:

- The Ibrahimi Mosque is surrounded by 12 Israeli military checkpoints and two stations for the Police and Border Guard (“Magav”). In 2020, Israeli occupation authorities prevented the call to prayer (“adhan”) from Ibrahimi Mosque minarets 602 times, not to mention the repeated incursions by the Israeli Prime Minister, Minister of Defense, and settlers, as well as conducting military drills inside the Ibrahim Mosque compound. Other serious violations were also committed there.

- Among the most severe contraventions perpetrated by Israeli authorities at the Ibrahimi Mosque is obstructing the passage of Palestinians on their way to the Friday prayer due to the countless military checkpoints at the entrance of Hebron’s Old City. This greatly disrupts their entry into the mosque in different periods of time, under weak security pretexts.

- The aforementioned practices constitute a flagrant violation of the freedom of worship and right to practice religious rituals, which were guaranteed by international laws and conventions. For example, the Israeli measures are inconsistent with Article (27) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which obliges the occupying power to respect the occupied people’s right to practice their religious rituals. These actions also contradict with Article (53) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention (1977), which prohibits the committing of any acts of hostility against places of worship that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.

Forced Displacement in Jerusalem

- The Judaization of Jerusalem is one of the main strategic priorities of Israeli occupation authorities. In fact, “Judaization” is the most decisive factor in Israel’s war for the elimination of Arab-Islamic presence in Jerusalem. In order to achieve this objective, Israel is using all available means to change the geographic, historic, demographic, and cultural character of Jerusalem. Among the most dangerous methods used by the occupation is the “forcible displacement” of Palestinians in Jerusalem.

- Israeli authorities utilise their different agencies and institutions during the systematic implementation of their strategic plan. Within this framework, they formulate colonialist plans and ideas to deport Palestinians from Jerusalem. This was recently escalated by Israel’s adoption of major colonialist plans to coercively Judaize Jerusalem and ethnically cleanse its indigenous population. These plans include the notorious Silicon Wadi project and the City Center project.

- Israeli authorities and their related institutions – especially the Municipality of Jerusalem – are implementing major economic plans and projects to tighten their regulatory grip on properties in Jerusalem through the restriction of building expansion. This is done to minimize the number of Palestinians in politically sensitive areas that may affect the final status resolutions and visions for Jerusalem.

- Israeli occupation authorities also use the revocation of residency policy (such as revoking I.D. cards) as a hostile mechanism to forcefully displace Palestinians and maintain what is called the “demographic balance” in Jerusalem (maintaining a Jewish majority of at least 70% in Jerusalem).

- From 1967 until the end of 2020, the number of Palestinian Jerusalemites who suffered from residency revocation was 14,643.

- The forcible displacement policy adopted by Israeli occupation authorities against Palestinians is in clear breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, especially Articles (45), (46) and (49), which prohibit individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations, of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, regardless of their motive.

***

[1] Note: Currently, there are 12 schools established recently by Israel in East Jerusalem and which completely apply the Israeli educational system, as stated in reports issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. However, a fact sheet published by the Jerusalem Education Forum mentioned that there are 50 schools in East Jerusalem that apply the “Bagrut” system fully or partially. Therefore, 12 of them use the Bagrut system fully, whereas the rest (38) use it partially (such as opening special classrooms for the “Bagrut”, while the rest of classrooms would use the Palestinian curriculum).

To View the Full Factsheet as PDF

This fact sheet highlights the main violations monitored and documented by youth human rights defenders in the Gaza Strip in the 2020-2021 period. It includes facts and figures that point to a general systematic Israeli policy to intentionally violate rights and freedoms - especially the right to health and right to work - in the Gaza Strip (buffer zone).

Young human rights defenders monitored and documented hundreds of violations committed in the Gaza Strip, especially in the buffer zone, in 2020-2021.

This paper summarizes the main findings of this documentation through comprehensive data, facts and figures of the perpetrated violations in the areas of operation.

Violation of the right to work and right to health in the buffer zone in the Gaza Strip

Violating the Right to Work in the Gaza Strip (Buffer Zone)

• Israeli occupation authorities imposed an access-restricted zone that extends up to 1,500 meters in some areas along the Gaza separation fence. Israel intentionally attacks and bulldozes agricultural lands in this area, along with destroying all residential, agricultural, and industrial establishments within a range of 500 meters and bulldozing 75% of establishments within a range of 1,000 meters. Israel also deliberately disrupts the movement of Palestinians in these areas, as well as destroying their properties.
• Israeli soldiers directly target Palestinian agricultural and industrial workers in the area surrounding the separation fence, especially farmers, bird hunters, shepherds, and firewood and scrap material collectors. These attacks are carried out by using different types of machine guns and heavy weaponry (including artillery and rockets) and the shooting of fire from watchtowers and military vehicles. These attacks lead to substantial human and material losses and usually prevent labourers from completing their work, thus losing their livelihoods.
• Since 2014, Israel has been regularly spraying chemical herbicides on Palestinian agricultural lands in the access-restricted areas. Their pretext is that these operations are conducted for security motives and that they aim to remove harmful weeds in the areas adjacent to the separation fence to enable the monitoring of all movement in the access-restricted areas. The spraying of chemical herbicides has long-term negative effects on crops, the environment, health, soil quality, and all creatures (biota) in Palestinian agricultural lands within the access-restricted areas.

Multiple Violations resulting from the Spraying of Chemical Herbicides:

The spraying of toxic chemical herbicides leads to multiple violations against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip buffer zone. These violations include the following:

• Violation of the Right to Life: The chemical herbicides used by Israeli occupation authorities pose a serious threat to residents’ lives, as these substances are highly cancerous and may lead to death. The right to life is among the most sacred rights guaranteed by international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international criminal law. Therefore, Israel should be held accountable for using these dangerous chemical substances, which are considered a violation of the right to life, similar to other grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In fact, this violation can be classified as a crime against humanity and a war crime.

• Violation of the Right to Health: Chemical herbicides used by Israeli authorities threaten the health of Palestinians living in the buffer zone, as they cause chronic and cancerous diseases/tumors. This is a contravention of the international human rights law, which highlights the right of all persons to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical health.

• Violation of the Right to a Clean Environment: The spraying of toxic chemical herbicides has catastrophic environmental effects on the soil and agricultural crops. This is because they contain toxic substances that lead to long-term damages to crops, the environment, health, and soil quality. This action is inconsistent with international human rights law, especially Article (12) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which stipulates the commitment of States Parties to improve all aspects of environmental hygiene.

• Violation of the Right to Work: Israel’s spraying of toxic chemical herbicides is a violation of the right to work due to the curtailing of job opportunities, thus leading to higher unemployment rates. This is because the sprayed chemical herbicides seriously harm the soil, in a way that prevents the growth of plants for long periods of time, thus reducing employment opportunities for agricultural workers.[1] These practices are in clear breach of international law, especially the international human rights law. For example, Article (23) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work.[2] These actions are also in contravention of Articles (6) and (7) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which oblige States Parties to recognize the right to work and the right of everyone to enjoy just and favourable work conditions.

The following table includes statistical data on the violations committed by Israeli authorities in Gaza’s access-restricted area by land in 2020:

• Between January 2005 and the end of June 2020, there were 1,092 incidents of gunfire shooting on farmers in the access-restricted area.
• In 2020, Israeli occupation forces reduced the permitted fishing areas for Palestinian fishermen to a distance of 6 nautical miles in the governorates of Gaza and Northern Gaza, and around 9-15 nautical miles in the governorates of Al-Wusta, Khan Younis and Rafah (south of the Gaza Strip). Also, Palestinian maritime activity is completely forbidden in some cases.
• In addition to the imposed restrictions, there were cases of Israel’s killing, arresting, and torturing of Palestinian fishermen and confiscating and destroying their boats and equipment. This emanated from the current Israeli policy against Palestinian fisherman and fishing sector, which aims to disrupt their livelihoods.

The following table includes data about the violations perpetrated by Israeli forces against Gaza’s fishermen in 2020:

The Israeli attacks on agricultural, industrial, and fishing sector workers have led to the following violations:

1. Violation of the Right to Life, in contravention of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
2. Violation of the Right to Freedom and the Practice of Torture, whereas the right to freedom is considered one of the most vital rights highlighted by international human rights conventions. There were also many cases in which Israel arrested Palestinian residents in the buffer zone (especially farmers and fishermen) and subjected them to torture.

The Israeli authorities’ practice of torture against Palestinians living in the buffer zone – especially farmers and fishermen – is a flagrant violation of international law, including international human rights law, which highlights the duties of States Parties towards all persons under their control. These actions also violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (especially Article (7) of this Covenant) and the United Nations Convention against Torture.

The aforementioned Israeli practices also violate the international humanitarian law, which is concerned with the duties of the occupying power vis-à-vis the residents of occupied territories. Within this framework, the said Israeli actions violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, especially Article (3)(1)(a). Furthermore, Article (147) of the Fourth Geneva Convention considers torture among the “grave breaches” that entail the activation of universal jurisdiction and the undertaking of effective penal measures in accordance with Article (146) of the said convention.

The aforementioned Israeli practices are also inconsistent with the Rome Statute, whose seventh article tackles the subject of crimes against humanity.

Violation of the Right to Work:

The various measures implemented by Israeli authorities against Palestinian residents inside the buffer zone (especially farmers) seriously affect the right to work and increase the unemployment rate. This constitutes a blatant violation of international law, especially the international human rights law. For example, Article (23) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work”. Israeli actions are also inconsistent with Article (25) of the said Declaration, which states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family”. Additionally, Articles (6) and (7) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights oblige countries to recognize the right to work and the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work.

Violation of the Right to Health:

- Gaza Strip patients are continuously suffering from unjust restrictions imposed by Israeli authorities, which prevent them from going to hospital to receive treatment in light of the difficult permit system. This suffering is exacerbated by the great shortage in medicines and medical supplies in the Gaza Strip due to Israel’s ongoing siege on Gaza. For example, the imposed siege has prevented the Ministry of Health from fixing 350 medical devices due to their inability to import spare parts for medical devices, leading to the deterioration of health conditions and seriously threatening people’s lives.

• Other violations are committed by Israel in addition to the imposed siege and restrictions on the entry of medicines and medical supplies into Gaza. Examples include targeting the Palestinian health sector - in clear breach of international humanitarian law - by bombing hospitals, medical workers, health care centers, and ambulances. This significantly weakened the [Palestinian] health sector and prevented the accommodation of patients, especially severe health cases that need special care. MIFTAH organization monitored and detected 418 violations of the right to health in 2020.

- The above-mentioned Israeli practices are inconsistent with international law, especially international human rights law. For example, Article (25) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stresses the right of everyone to receive medical care in the event of sickness. These Israeli actions also violate Article (12) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which stipulates that everyone has the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical health. This article also obligates States Parties to create conditions that would assure medical service and medical attention to all persons in the event of sickness.

***

 [1] The multiple violations resulting from the spraying of toxic chemical herbicides – including the violation of the right to life and right to work – will be discussed in further detail in the next section, within the context of addressing the violations against agricultural, industrial, and fishing sector workers.

[2] See Article (23) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

To View the Full Factsheet as PDF

Executive Summary:

This policy paper discusses the reality of trade and tourism in the Old City of Hebron in light of the Israeli violations, such as the deployment of nearly 100 military checkpoints, and settlers’ attacks on Palestinians and foreign supporters. The paper also highlights the Israeli military decisions to close down numerous shops and main streets in the Old City of Hebron, such as Al-Shuhada street. The paper also sheds light on the Israeli restrictions on religious freedom, especially in the Ibrahimi Mosque, as well as hindering access to it through barriers. This turned the Old City (which is supposed to be a prominent tourist attraction) into a closed military zone and prevented touristic and commercial activities therein. Israel also aims to get rid of all Palestinian residents and international supporters/activists in the Old City of Hebron, after having terminated the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH). This comes in light of including the Old City of Hebron and the Ibrahimi Mosque in UNESCO’s list of “World Heritage in Danger”.

Introduction:

The Israeli settlement regime in the heart of Hebron created difficult conditions that significantly affected the tourism and trade sectors. These can be summarized as follows:

The Old City of Hebron is subjected to an Apartheid regime. Many of its roads are exclusively designated for settlers and Palestinians are prohibited from using them. In other roads, it is allowed for a Palestinian to go on foot but not to drive, whereas other roads allow Palestinians to drive but not to walk. In the Old City, there are homes where residents are not allowed to enter from their house door, hence they turned their windows into doors or opened new doors for their homes. In other cases, local Palestinian residents are not able to access their homes except by walking on the roofs of adjacent houses. There are also neighbourhoods where a Palestinian cannot enter except if s/he is a resident of the neighbourhood, thus preventing them from receiving any visitors. In other neighbourhoods, it is not allowed for a Palestinian to enter except through security gates and physical inspection checkpoints. These procedures were introduced to facilitate the life of illegal settlers at the expense of local Palestinians. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, there are 22 Israeli settlements in the Hebron Governorate, as well as 15 settlement outposts and 4 industrial settlements, which include a total of approximately 19,000 Israeli settlers.

These Israeli practices and measures have put the trade and tourism sectors on the brink of collapse. What further aggravated the situation was Israel’s expulsion of 65 international observers from TIPH (Temporary International Presence in Hebron) on January 31, 2019. This is quite unfortunate because TIPH was the only international body that had a protective presence and was authorized to reach any part of the city on foot during the years 2015-2019. Moreover, they had direct communication channels with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to urgently deal with various matters.

This map explains the “H2” area in terms of the number of Palestinians, number of Israeli settlers, checkpoints, and areas where Palestinian entry is denied.

Policy Paper Objective:

The policy paper aims to present policy recommendations to advance the trade and tourism sectors in the Old City of Hebron and confront and halt the Israeli violations.

Policy Problem:

The paper seeks to address the following policy problem:

• What policies should be adopted to limit the Israeli measures that directly affect the trade and touristic life in the Old City of Hebron?

Reality of the Trade Sector in the Old City of Hebron:

An assessment by Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) in 2019, concluded that the economic impact of Israeli measures is devastating. Moreover, a study on the impact of Israeli measures on the economic situation in the Old City of Hebron, indicated that the total direct and indirect losses resulting from the closure of shops due to Israeli military orders are estimated at 485 million U.S. Dollars in the past 25 years. This means that the Old City of Hebron incurred a monthly loss of about 1.6 million U.S. Dollars as a result of these measures.

It was also indicated that 62.4% of the closed shops were shut down during the Second Intifada, and the rest were closed due to Israeli military orders. For example, Al-Shuhada Street saw the closure of 304 shops, 218 of which were closed due to military orders. Additionally, the Israeli authorities issued 21 military orders that led to the forcible displacement of dozens of Palestinian families from the Old City, whose number totaled 6,000 persons.

According to Hebronite economist Raja’i Qaisi, the economic consequences of the prolonged closures in Hebron were disastrous. For example, at the first level of closures, 700 stores were entirely closed down either due to military orders or as a result of restrictions and limited access, thus leading to a loss of about 200,000 U.S. Dollars per store. Meanwhile, the second level of closures included the partial closure of 700 stores due to the aforementioned restrictions. This is because of the threefold increase in the distance, cost and required time for reaching these stores as a result of closing key roads (especially Al-Shuhada and Al-Shallala streets), which made it difficult for clients and suppliers to access them.

The remaining stores (about 1,000) also saw significant losses (estimated at 70 million U.S. Dollars). It is a well-known fact that the Old City of Hebron was historically considered an important commercial center, where about 5,000 persons were working in different fields. However, many of these persons are currently unemployed and became a burden on society. The closure of businesses deprived these workers of the only job opportunities available to them. This forced hundreds of Palestinian families who live in the areas of friction (most of whom are very poor) to leave their homes and apartments in search for other alternatives, thereby increasing their burdens due to unaffordable rental and building costs. Consequently, 75% of the remaining Old City residents are currently living below the poverty line. A survey conducted by the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy indicated that the poverty and unemployment rates have been steadily rising since 1997 (Badil Center, 2016). Also, the average income per household in the “H2” area of Hebron is approximately 160 U.S. Dollars per month, whereas the average income in the West Bank is 405 U.S. Dollars.

As mentioned by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) in 2019: “At the present time, after 22 years from signing the protocol, the remaining work is assessed at 10%. It was also seen that eight out of every ten adults are unemployed, and that 75% of families live below the poverty time” (Land Research Center). According to a study conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2005, the average monthly income of Palestinian households in Hebron’s “H2” area is only 700 Shekels [which is equivalent to 150 U.S. Dollars per month].

Moreover, the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee (HRC) pointed out that, out of the 650 shops and warehouses located in the old market (“Al-Qasaba”), only 10% are currently operating, and at a much lower capacity (Al-Shabaka, 2009).

Reality of the Tourism Sector in the Old City of Hebron:

Israeli policies and measures are the main challenge facing the tourism sector in the Old City of Hebron. This sector is intentionally undermined by Israel all year long. For example, Israel provides a safe passage to foreign tourists from the back side of the Ibrahimi Mosque because it is under their control, thus weakening the touristic movement in the old Palestinian market. Moreover, Israeli tourist companies bring tourists in Israeli busses within their biased and targeted touristic itineraries. Israel also provokes Palestinian worshipers and searches them intensively at the electronic gates and military checkpoints leading to the Ibrahimi Mosque and Old City of Hebron, as well as preventing the Muslim call to prayer. This affects the movement inside the old market that leads to the Mosque. For example, the adhaan was prevented 634 times [in the Ibrahimi Mosque] in 2020.

Various forms of Israeli violations are committed against the tourism sector. These include the following:

• Deployment of nearly 100 military checkpoints inside the Old City of Hebron, which poses a threat to both tourists and local residents, thus crippling the tourism and trade activities therein. These checkpoints and their related measures violate people’s privacy and affect their freedom of movement and sense of security. The checkpoints are also frightening for many tourists and visitors from outside the Old City, hence they refrain from entering the city and wandering in it. This greatly affects tourism and trade activities inside the city despite including the Ibrahimi Mosque (which is an important historical-religious site) in UNESCO’s list of World Heritage in Danger. Also, the Old City of Hebron was considered to be “of exceptional universal value”. Therefore, the Ibrahimi Mosque and other historical sites in the Old City of Hebron are supposed to constitute major tourist destinations for visitors in Hebron. Despite the various attempts to revive and rebuild the Old City, most of the efforts were in vain. This is because of the unsafe situation of Old City residents, who are surrounded by radical Israeli settlers. These settlers are guarded by hundreds of armed Israeli soldiers and continuously attack Palestinian residents and their properties.
• Settlers constantly assault and harass international activists and Palestinian citizens, which created an unsafe environment for tourists and locals.
• Israeli poses a direct threat to archaeological and religious sites in the Old City of Hebron, whereas the Old City of Hebron and the Ibrahimi Mosque were included in UNESCO’s list of World Heritage in Danger.
• Israel provokes Palestinian worshipers and places heavy restrictions on them, as well as searching them intensively each time they enter the Ibrahimi Mosque. These practices constitute a violation of people’s right to worship, and they intentionally aim to weaken religious tourism in this landmark.
• Israel organizes tourism programs in the Old City of Hebron in a way that propagates the settler-colonial narrative against Palestine. At the same time, they support the Israeli tourism sector and aim to weaken Palestinian tourism. This is part of the Israeli economic settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territories.
• Israeli authorities prevent the transport and entry of goods into the area under their control in the Old City of Hebron.
• Israel violates a number of international human rights charters and conventions that guarantee the right of all persons to worship, move freely and enjoy economic rights.

In light of what was mentioned above, the paper presents the following alternatives and recommendations to relevant Palestinian and international parties, to enable them to formulate policies that help create a better trade and tourism sector in the Old City. The paper assumes that these suggestions can be implemented simultaneously, in order to have a maximum impact within a reasonable period of time.

First Alternative: Raise the level of awareness about tourism and trade in the Old City of Hebron, through:

Organizing awareness-raising programs and campaigns for school and university students, Old City residents, and merchants. This can be done by publishing brochures and booklets related to heritage sites in the Old City. It is also recommended to organize educational and touristic trips for interested school and university students from all Palestinian governorates, as well as implementing educational programs (including tourism education) for students from or outside the Old City. These programs can be conducted in cooperation between the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Ministry of Education, and national institutions in Hebron. Efforts should also be exerted to put an end to the destructive effects on the tourism and trade sectors, as well as changing the negative stereotypes about Palestinians internationally. It is also helpful to prepare informative materials about trade and tourism, such as issuing brochures about Hebron’s Old City, developing a touristic map, publishing the names of touristic areas and sites, and printing the addresses of Old City shops for easy access. It is also recommended to add guiding signs and develop interesting touristic routes, such as oil presses and maqams.

Second Alternative: Activate commercial marketing and tourism media, through the following activities:

Marketing and promotion of cultural, commercial and touristic sites, as well as encouraging residents and visitors to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque and the Old City of Hebron. Also, there is a need to encourage tourism offices to promote Palestinian heritage sites and goods in the Old City of Hebron, both within and outside the country. Academic institutions should also be encouraged to highlight the importance of Hebron’s Old City from the cultural and historical points of view, as well as encouraging people to visit this valuable location. It is also important to strengthen commercial and tourism security in the Old City, as well as licensing street vendors and oriental antiquity stores and putting an end to the phenomenon of beggars and pickpocketing. Furthermore, we recommend the provision of public health facilities, along with encouraging private companies to establish hotels and restaurants, provide special parking lots for cars and tourist buses, and increase investments in the Old City.

Third Alternative: The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism must formulate a robust national plan for the Old City of Hebron

This plan must focus on bringing international delegations to the Old City of Hebron to familiarize them about the location, enhance the Palestinian narrative, support the tourism sector, and promote Hebron internationally.

Fourth Alternative: Introduce twinning programs between the Hebron Municipality and different municipalities around the world, to support the economy of Hebron’s Old City and rejuvenate its tourism.

Fifth Alternative: Call upon the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to protect the Old City of Hebron, which was included in UNESCO’s list of “World Heritage in Danger”.

Sixth Alternative: Promote the Palestinian narrative vis-à-vis heritage sites in the Old City of Hebron

This can include preparing virtual tours to introduce tourists to the Old City’s valuable historical and archaeological sites.

Seventh Alternative: Reactivate the shops of Hebron through e-commerce, with the help of the Hebron Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Since there are many obstacles that prevent people from accessing Old City shops, e-commerce tools can be used to sell their products to potential clients outside the Old City. Such a plan must be formulated to reactivate the work of Old City merchants and enhance their survival.

To View the Full Paper as PDF

This Policy Paper was prepared as part of the “Youth as Human Right Defenders” project funded by the European Union The content of this document does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the study lies entirely with MIFTAH.