In the year 2005, approximately 94 structures were demolished in East Jerusalem. Of these, the Municipality demolished 76 structures and the Ministry of Interior demolished 18 structures. This number (94) included 11 pirate gas stations and two “self-demolitions” in places where there had been an administrative demolition order outstanding.

In comparison with 2004, which was a peak year for home demolitions, with 152 buildings being demolished, this past year recorded a decrease in the number of demolitions because of the high rate of demonstrations held by the Israeli right-wing during the Gaza Withdrawal period, which concentrated all the police and army manpower to crowd dispersal and did not allow the authorities to maintain enough manpower to guard demolition sites.

Another reason behind the decline in numbers of home demolitions was the events organized to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, which brought together world leaders; this past year also saw some decline because no homes were demolished during the Holy Month of Ramadan. In any event, it is clear to us that the decline in the numbers of home demolitions did not stem from any change in government policy, but as a result of circumstantial reasons only.

On the other hand, there was a significant increase last year in the size of demolitions undertaken, as to area. In 2005, a total of 12,000 sq.m. was demolished, as opposed to 9,000 sq.m. the previous year (in other words, in 2005 less homes were demolished, but those that were occupied a larger area – an increase of 30%). This is explained by the fact that during this past year particularly large buildings were demolished, including 4-, 5-, 6- and even 7-storey buildings.

During 2005, 1,529 building infractions were recorded. Of these, 857 charges were brought to Court (the Municipal Court); of these 857, 80 administrative demolition orders were handed down, of which 76 actual demolitions took place. These figures reflect only the Municipality of Jerusalem statistics, and do not include any from the Ministry of Interior.

The comparison table between building infractions and demolitions which were carried out during the past two years, both in West and East Jerusalem is as follows:

Since most of the charges brought to the court end with the imposition of a monetary fine, and a judicial demolition order, it means that the total number of demolition orders – both administrative and judicial together – reached in 2005 a total of 937. To this number should be added the number of demolition orders issued by the Ministry of Interior, which last year represented 62 judicial orders, so that the total number of demolition orders for 2005 was 999.

Whilst referring to the amount of fines paid for building infractions, we do not have accurate figures because the court does not distinguish between West and East Jerusalem. The total amount paid in fines is NIS 34,692,362. Nevertheless, a reliable source has explained to us that of the total fines handed down for illegal building, 70% relates to the east of the city. On this basis, we have analysed the amounts as declared by the municipality to us, and have arrived at the estimate of some 30 million shekels; of these, municipal fines represent NIS 27.3 million, whilst Ministry of Interior fines represent NIS 3.8 million.

There were some extremely serious events which took place during this past year, as to home demolitions. Amongst them, two buildings were demolished despite the owners having received a “Freeze Demolition Order” from the court. The Harhash family home in A-Tur (Mount of Olives) was demolished in June, and the Toutach family home in Wadi Joz was demolished in November. On both occasions, we were witness to a phenomenon that we have called “The Switching Off of Telecommunications Syndrome”.

When building inspectors arrive for a home demolitions and they are told that the family has lodged an urgent appeal against the demolition, the inspectors switch off their telecommunications systems in order not to receive the notice by the family lawyers that a Freeze Demolition Order has been obtained.

They switch on their systems again, once the demolition has been carried out. We have also been witness to the co-operation between the Israeli police and municipal inspectors, who close off the entire area of a demolition site and have thereby prevented the home owner or his lawyer from reaching the site in order to present the Freeze Demolition Order to the inspectors, even though the lawyer has identified himself and his mission to the police cordoning the site.

In the case of the Harhash family, the lawyer, Assaf Bouteach, did not manage to make contact with the building inspectors at the site; he came extremely fast on his motorcycle to the site, arrived before the demolition had started, the police detained him at a distance of 50 metres and while he waited for the police commander to issue him with permission to pass, the bulldozer hit the building, cracked its foundations and the engineer of the Department of Dangerous Buildings in the municipality ruled that the building was then an unsafe structure and had to be demolished.

In the case of the Toutach family, when the inspectors of the Ministry of Interior saw that the family lawyer had managed to arrive on time with a Freeze Demolition Order, they told the driver of the bulldozer to commence destruction work, even before the workers had finished taking out all the contents of the house. In this way, some of the house contents were buried underneath the rubble. The Toutach family home was demolished on the basis of a demolition order which had been outstanding for 15 years, because demolition orders never expire.

This past year also witnessed an extremely worrying phenomenon on the part of the local courts, whereby judges demanded amounts of money as guarantees against the issuance of Freeze Demolition Orders. Families had to deposit guarantees in amounts of tens of thousands of shekels. The legal reasoning given was that the Municipality had already spent money on the bulldozers (salaries of drivers, security personnel, etc.) and if the appeal of the homeowners was not granted, the state could take the money to offset expenses it had incurred because of the request to delay demolition proceedings.

As to what steps the Municipality and the State undertook in order to carry out the law, during the past three years heavy machinery and building materials were impounded (especially cement mixers), but also smaller work tools, including even hand-drills. In 2005, 24 mechanical machines were impounded (total number impounded since 2003 when the operation commenced: 68 machines).