ÄMNE: Socialt arbete, C-kurs HANDLEDARE: Klas Borell

MITTUNIVERSITETET

Institutionen för Socialt arbete

ÄMNE: Socialt arbete, C-kurs HANDLEDARE: Klas Borell

SAMMANFATTNING:

This study examines Palestinian families exposed to house demolitions and their reactions to having their homes destroyed by the Israeli Authorities. The traumatic effects of suddenly becoming homeless is studied in a resiliency perspective, and comparisons with earlier research of resiliency and of mental health in the context of house demolitions are made. The purpose of the study is to illustrate the families’ reactions and their coping strategies in resisting the effects of trauma and desolation following repeated home demolitions. The data was collected through ethnographic field studies in Israel using participant observations, interviews, observations and documents. This study will conclude that the violation of homes has major influence on the mental health of the various family members. Men loose their value as providers, women loose the centre of their lives, and children loose their sense of safety and security.

Discovery of how resilient protective factors empower the afflicted families when they rebuild their homes, in spite of the lack of being able to obtain building permits, is shown. However, the rebuilding is still a fragile process as the families often go through the trauma of demolition over and over again.

NYCKELORD:

TITEL:

FÖRFATTARE:

DATUM:

House Demolitions, Palestinians, family, reactions, effects, resilience: house rebuilding, vulnerability and protective factors, coping strategies

Destroyed Homes: Reactions and Effects on Palestinian Families Exposed to House Demolitions in a Resiliency Perspective

Britt-Inger Souty

Juni 2008

ABSTRACT

This study examines Palestinian families exposed to house demolitions and their reactions to having their homes destroyed by the Israeli Authorities. The traumatic effects of suddenly becoming homeless is studied in a resiliency perspective, and comparisons with earlier research of resiliency and of mental health in the context of house demolitions are made. The purpose of the study is to illustrate the families’

reactions and their coping strategies in resisting the effects of trauma and desolation following repeated home demolitions. The data was collected through ethnographic field studies in Israel using participant observations, interviews, observations and documents. This study will conclude that the violation of homes has major influence on the mental health of the various family members. Men loose their value as providers, women loose the centre of their lives, and children loose their sense of safety and security.

Discovery of how resilient protective factors empower the afflicted families when they rebuild their homes, in spite of the lack of being able to obtain building permits, is shown. However, the rebuilding is still a fragile process as the families often go through the trauma of demolition over and over again.

Keywords: House Demolitions, Palestinians, family, reactions, effects, resilience;

house rebuilding, vulnerability and protective factors, coping strategies

FOREWORD

First of all I want to thank the families from Jerusalem, and neighbouring villages who contributed to the contents of this paper. Without you there would not have been anything to tell. When it comes to certain facts about you and your situation, I have changed some things and kept your identities anonymous, out of respect for your integrity and safety. For the same reason, I have transformed some of the personal detail-information – your experiences are still genuine. I am certain you will recognize your experiences of House Demolitions in whatever context it is presented to you. I also want you to know how much I admire the resilience, the courage and the resistance you show in spite of all.

Lucia Pizarro, my practice placement supervisor and international coordinator of ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for your supervisory sessions and continuous support, you are one of the best.

I also want to thank all the others working at, and in connection with, ICAHD in Israel and in the West bank for introducing me to the facts of House Demolitions and for helping me in every way to access information and introduce meetings with the people themselves. None of you are mentioned by name, and none forgotten.

My supervisor Professor Klas Borell, thank you for your constructive advices. They have been of enormous help in the writing process.

For reviewing the study in general and the linguistics in particular, I thank Dr Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Mr Martin Kero, M. Sc. All eventual errors are entirely my own.

Last of all, to my family, relatives and friends for all the support and the encouragement. I can only be

grateful.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...5

BACKGROUND...5

House demolition and resiliency – an unexplored field...5

PROBLEM...5

Purpose...6

STRUCTURE OF CONTENTS...7

CHAPTER 2: MATERIAL AND METHOD...8

METHOD OF COLLECTION...8

METHOD OF ANALYSIS...9

APPROACH IN THE WORK PROCESS – DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING...10

ETHICAL ASPECTS...11

CHAPTER 3: EARLIER RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES...12

EARLIER RESEARCH...12

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES...13

Resiliency – background and development...14

Political violence and resilience...15

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS – DECODING AND ANALYSIS...16

BACKGROUND TO HOUSE DEMOLITIONS...16

Review over the historical background to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...16

Policy and process of house demolitions...16

Applying for a building permit...18

A political and critical overview of the demolition policy...19

Political views on solutions to occupation and discrimination...19

HOUSE DEMOLITIONS AND THE FAMILIES – EFFECTS AND REACTIONS ...21

Children and adults in the Palestinian context...21

Demolition without prior notice...22

What is the meaning of ‘home’ – and of its destruction?...25

Effects and reactions on various family members – men, children and women....26

COPING...33

Rebuilding again and again and again…...33

Resilience in the midst of destruction: ‘We refuse to be enemies’ and the activist assistance...36

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION...39

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES...44

A PPENDIX 1: F REQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS DURING INTERVIEWS , CONVERSATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ...46

Appendix 2: The author’s social perspective...47

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The home, with its familiar atmosphere, is a central place for most people. People’s homes acquire special emotional significance and it is an important setting for our experiences. The boundaries of this environment are largely taken for granted in today’s Western world. Hedges and fences protect the home against intruders and social rules include or exclude visitors (Borell, 2008).

In the Western world the stability of home is often taken for granted, and inviolable in its sense of privacy. In other parts of the world, this is not a matter of course; homes are under various kinds of threats like natural disasters and war. Threats can also include an occupational policy of house demolitions. In the present paper I focus on people’s reactions to house demolitions.

There are, of course, many other ways of looking at the issue of house demolition, political, economical and legal. These views will be mentioned in connection with the reactions as they are interrelated, but they will only be given space as supplement to the subject of house demolitions.

House demolition and resiliency – an unexplored field

A resiliency perspective is becoming increasingly common in today's social sciences. Resiliency is a concept which focuses on traumatic experiences on one hand and on resistance and coping abilities on the other. House demolition and its mental effects on people are, in itself, an understudied phenomena and as far as I know, nothing has yet been written about house demolitions from a resiliency perspective (but there are much research made on the subject of resilience in matters of military violence and threats, including violence and threats effecting Palestinians).

I have chosen to conduct my study with the ethnographic method, as it is a suitable approach when doing qualitative-based field-work, due to the method’s variety-possibilities of collecting data. In my understanding there is a need for more qualitative research on trauma caused by house demolition, and for more research on house demolition and resiliency, both quantitative and qualitative.

PROBLEM

House demolitions have become an integral part of the Palestinian experience. A policy of ‘quiet transfer’

is carried out by the Israeli Authorities by way of denying Palestinians building permits, thus forcing them to build without it. In most cases this results in the demolition of homes.

The effects and the threat of house demolitions have extensive implications, both psychological and

economical, for the people concerned – the basic sense of the security of one’s home is shattered, indeed it is shattered indefinitely, as a rebuilt home continues to be under threat of demolition. This paper will explore what these effects are and how people cope in the vulnerable situations that follow a house demolition.

Field studies on house demolitions were made possible to conduct through the organization ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. ICAHD works for political and human rights in Israel and on the occupied territories, and the main purpose is to resist occupation and build peace by rebuilding houses demolished by the Israeli Authorities.

Illegal building is defined as criminal offence by unlawful use of land, and using a building without a permit (Margalit, 2007). In this study the demolitions are carried out according to the latter – building without a permit. The demolition order is not issued to the homeowner as it is directed to the building itself so it is just attached to the building. Anytime after that, beginning 24 hours after issuing the order, the demolition can take place.

Purpose

This paper examines the reactions and the effects on people losing their home through house demolitions, and we shall look at that issue from a resiliency perspective. This is something new as the issue of house demolitions on the whole is understudied, and further that existing research mainly seems to be of a quantitative nature. Moreover, I have so far found no explicit research with the distinct delimitation of house demolition and resiliency, which implies an almost unexplored field for further research.

Whenever the terms house demolitions and resiliency has been mentioned in a context they have been mentioned as parts of a bigger context with many other issues which concerns military violence and occupation in general.

For Palestinians in Israel and in the occupied territories house demolition is a daily reality on which this paper focuses – the reactions and effects on the various family members outline the bulk of the paper.

Together with the coping strategies used by the families this is examined in the resiliency context.

We shall explore the vulnerability and the protective factors that exist in the lives of the families exposed to house demolitions. The rebuilding of their homes is a protective factor that we shall be looking at. We shall further explore earlier research within the field of house demolitions. Even though the political background of the house demolition process has a chapter of its own, and will be referred to from time to time, the paper will not put the Occupation and the legal processes in the centre.

We shall look in detail at the following issues:

- How are people affected by living under the threat of house demolition?

- When their home is demolished, what are the reactions and the effects on people? How do the different family members express their experiences?

- In what ways do people cope with the trauma of house demolitions?

- When the house is rebuilt, how does it affect people?

- What resiliency factors can be presented?

- How does the date of this paper compare with that of earlier research?

STRUCTURE OF CONTENTS

After the first introductory chapter, chapter two gives an account for the methods and material in collecting and analysing data, as well as the ethical aspects. In chapter three I present both earlier research on resiliency and house demolition, and the theoretical frame-work within resiliency which is central for the analysis of the study. Chapter four consists of the bulk of the study – data on families’

reactions to house demolition and the effects it has in their lives. Particular attention is given different

family members – men, children and women. Background to house demolitions, policy and political

views and what ‘home’ means are also presented here. The chapter concludes with a presentation of

coping strategies. Finally, the fifth chapter consists of a discussion where I appraise my findings during

field-work.

Chapter 2: MATERIAL AND METHOD

This study explores different aspects of house demolitions by looking at the daily situation for Palestinians in Israel and in the occupied territories. The study is qualitative as the data collecting is based on interviews/conversations, observations, and documentation. The data consists of interviews, both by me and by others, of six families named A, B, C, D, E and F, and also of documented materials such as books, exhibits and films

. More socio-demographic data on the families and their situations are presented in the bulk of the study. Where these kinds of details seem to be inadequate in the study, especially concerning names of neighborhoods etc, it is because the participants are protected by anonymity.

.

METHOD OF COLLECTION

As for collecting the data, I chose an ethnographic method because I intended to study the problem on the field. In addition, such a method enabled me to partake of other information such as documentation, other people’s material etc. The method is characterized by fieldwork, by diversity in collecting data, and by focus on sharing daily life experiences in order to increase the understanding of the object of the study (Granskär & Höglund-Nielsen, 2008). When using this method, we come closer to people’s reality, and we gain personal knowledge about them. In addition, it can also improve our understanding and our decoding of the field (Fangen, 2005).

My strategy for collecting data was to use participant observations, interviews, and documentation.

One benefit of multiplying methods of collection during field-work is the wider perspective. Moreover, the diversity of methods gives a holistic view to the study (Fetterman, 1998). We can thus see the objects of study from various angles, something that may increase the reliability (Granskär & Höglund-Nielsen, 2008).

There are also problems in combining different methods in data-collecting. The problematic part is to evaluate the reliability of the study as it would involve going to the same place and doing the same fieldwork.

Ethnography needs time and demands a high degree of dedication. I had both as the time of my field work stretched over four and a half months. There are different models for estimating how much time is enough on the field. My field-work can be considered to be a selective intermittent model, where the research can stretch over a period from three months to two years, and where the researcher is working

1

The families are from districts within Jerusalem and the city’s surrounding villages, and their background is almost entirely

agricultural. Some of them have lived on their land for generations and have an ancestral connection to it.

irregularly (Granskär & Höglund-Nielsen, 2008).

My pre-understanding of the problems concerning the effects of military occupation also contributed to the time problem, both positively and negatively (see Appendix 2). However, the pre-understanding reduced the risk of “going native” during the field work as earlier experiences already colored the field work. The question remains though, whether I have tendencies of going native because of said previous experiences (Granskär & Höglund-Nielsen, 2008)! Once more, see appendix 2, for further information.

I regard the interviews and observations to be very important because they give a personal account to experiences which are essential in a qualitative study. The documentation is mostly conducted by taking part of following material: literature, a photo essay, an exhibit and films which have enlarged the material. The exhibit and the films are about some of the interviewed families as one of the families is not interviewed, just filmed. In order to protect their identity, I will not reveal which one.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

This study is inspired by Grounded Theory (henceforth GT). Even so, it has not been conducted according to that method in a classical traditional manner, as it would mean starting data collecting from the beginning. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), data collection is controlled by the developing theory, which implies that data from categories or groups is constantly being selectively reformulated, meaning that the researcher goes back to the field, collects more data, and goes back again, this continuing full circle. If I would follow the traditional theoretical sampling of GT, I would have to go back to Israel and conduct the field work from scratch. However, as the formulating of a theory based on empirical data is consistent in the study, GT therefore remains the source of inspiration. Thus, I am not trying to verify existing theories of effects and reactions to house demolitions even though some research has been done about it. Instead, my purpose is to generate additional studies by empirical data collected on the field, a posteriori.

Concrete assets in the study are the different voices from the people who were observed and their expressions on how they are affected by house demolitions, together with current documentation.

Additionally, secondary data gave me the advantage of not being the interviewer; therefore my personality was not dominating at the occasion of those interviews.

Ethnographic text analysis implies analysis of data gathered on the field – the idea is to look for patterns in the observed social contexts. To analyze data according to the ethnographic method can involve various methods in order to get most out of the data-material, and to give a richer and more contextual picture of the described reality (Fetterman, 1998).

An ethnographic method is constructive in presenting social reality, and it consists of many methods to

decode data. In this kind of study, where the emphasis lies on the experiences and effects on people exposed to trauma, different methods of analysis can be used, I have laid more emphasis on personal creativity than on clearly defined forms of analysis. However, there are guidelines in GT that direct the analysis, for example the close study of daily experiences in short narratives where the purpose is to observe everyday events. I sought to study the field the way one studies something entirely new, which means generating theory by induction, and to let concepts ‘grow naturally’ (Fangen, 2005).

All the same, I have not attached too much importance to methods; they are there for aid and for inspiration. Instead I have focused on my data and on decoding them, as reality is what is interesting to analyze. According to Fangen (2005), field work is an ‘untidy’ kind of activity. It is personal and it is difficult to discern subjectivity from objectivity. My decoding of the data has naturally depended on my personal subjective position. It is difficult to present the sensitive face-to-face communication in writing;

however, the human dimensions of the experience will always be reflected in some way (Agar, 1986).

An integrated empirical presentation and analysis became the choice of approach as it made conveying data more alive and interesting. As much as possible, I have let the people express themselves in their own words.

APPROACH IN THE WORK PROCESS – DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

My field work was conducted in connection with an organization called the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, ICAHD. ICAHD was formed in 1998 and consists of Israelis, Palestinians and internationals working for just political changes in the region. The aims of the organization are manifold, however the issue of politically resisting house demolitions has precedence as ICAHD views the structural policy of destroying homes as the essence of every other occupational action. Within ICAHD my sampling was adapted in a constructive way as the organization has extensive material, and contacts with people whom were willing to take part in my study.

My first interviewee was a person involved with issues concerning house demolitions. I had one in depth-interview with him (where I used a tape recorder), several other informal conversations with him and his wife, and also documented material on him and his family. On one of my assignments on the field he and his wife were deeply involved and we were a full team of people working on a project. ICAHD gave me access to other families’ narratives from house demolitions. These families were interviewed by a volunteer at ICAHD who offered me his material. I visited two of the families myself together with a documentary film-team that interviewed and filmed them about their experiences of house demolitions.

My role was that of an observer, writing notes and memorizing the turns of the visit. All the families are

named Family A, Family B, Family C etc, until F.

Another way in which I collected data etc., within the ethnographic method was by taking part of already documented materials. As ICAHD is an organization with extended material I had a good foundation. One particular Photo Essay, for example, is concentrating on women’s experiences of house demolitions. Moreover, literature and films produced by ICAHD gave additional insight in the reactions and effects on people when exposed to house demolitions.

ETHICAL ASPECTS

In order to avoid making this study a political manifest, as well as out of respect for the people involved, I have kept the people whom I observed and interviewed anonymous in this study. The issue of house demolitions in a discrimination perspective is something the victims often want to make public. On the one hand, media is one of the ways of bringing attention to the demolitions, and a number of documentary filming has been conducted at the demolition sites. On the other hand, the one possible drawback of not being anonymous is the increased harassment from the authorities that the families are already exposed to. Moreover, as this study focuses on the effects and the reactions of house demolition, it is unwarranted to draw unnecessary attention to already exposed persons. Accordingly, factual information about the families have been changed to further protect of identities; number of children and their ages, sex, and names of areas where they live (all places are called X-village, X-country). Finally, as ICAHD has rebuilt hundreds of Palestinian houses, the sheer number of families involved with further contributes to the anonymity of the specific families involved in this study.

Only one of the families has allowed me to name them as they have already openly made their story public. This family is nonetheless not identified by name in this study as I wish to keep the study more stringent and focused.

To clarify how the ethical principles of research have been followed, I have taken following measures:

I asked the volunteer who conducted some of the interviews, as well as ICAHD, about the circumstances when data was collected: ICAHD have got permission from the families to publish their demolition- narratives, but not to mention their names. The families have been informed; they have given their consent to tell their stories and they have been told how the material is going to be used by ICAHD;

namely to be published in ICAHD-material.

Chapter 3: EARLIER RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

The purpose of this chapter is to review earlier research on theoretical perspectives on Palestinians and resilience as well as on house demolition and mental health. In the study I lay particular emphasis on resiliency as frame of reference when analyzing data, and therefore it is presented in a separate chapter.

To begin with, I intend to refer to earlier empirical research on Palestinian children and resiliency, and on house demolition and mental health. Secondly, I shall discuss certain theoretical perspectives of relevance to resiliency.

EARLIER RESEARCH

The Finnish researcher Raija-Leena Punamäki has, together with others, made extensive quantitative studies of Palestinians and Israelis about violence in the Middle East.

In Gaza 1993, during the Intifada, Punamäki et al. (2001) studied effects of cognitive accomplishments, perceived parenthood, traumatic events and activity. Three years later the same issues were examined in order to estimate its effects in the context of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). In the latter study PTSD was examined concerning emotional disorders, accomplishments in school, and neuroticism. Even though PTSD had developed, it was reduced as soon as the immediate violence and danger decreased. In a safer and more peaceful time the children in the study showed a distinct recovery from trauma. Punamäki et al. also examined vulnerability which was found among children that had witnessed violence, had lost relatives and had been wounded themselves. According to this latter study girls were more vulnerable than boys and showed a higher degree of PTSD.

In a parallel study (Punamäki et al., 2001) where the same interviewees’ experiences were observed, mental flexibility as resiliency factor on exposure to traumatic stress was measured. When hostilities were reduced, stress was lowered by the children’s mental flexibility, however, in the middle of violence, this did not happen. Rigid perception created, contrary to mental flexibility, a vulnerability factor within the children. A high degree of exposure to trauma resulted in higher degree of PTSD three years later.

Children with a higher intelligence showed a higher flexibility when exposed to lower degree of exposure to traumatic events. When exposure was increased these children became more emotionally disturbed, however not in concerns of accomplishments.

House demolitions and resiliency is not explicitly connected in research but demolitions have been

measured in matters of mental health. The specific study presented in this chapter focuses on the effects on the mental health of victims and witnesses of the violence of House Demolitions (Punamäki et al., 1998). Their other research concerning resiliency in various perspectives will be presented later in this study. However, we still await more explicit research particularly focused on house demolition connected with resilience.

Punamäki’s et al., (1998) study compares the reactions on the victims and the witnesses, and concludes that the victims expressed a higher degree of anxiety, depression, and paranoiac symptoms than the witnesses. They describe the psychological effect as immense, when a family is witness to the destruction of its own home.

The study looks at the concept of home and points out that the home is both the shelter and the heart of family life. Memories of joy and pain, and attachment to familiar objects, feelings of security and consolation; these things are all connected to the home. The results of the study showed that for Palestinians the demolition of their homes evokes the memories of the trauma associated with being a refugee, beginning in 1948. The fact that the demolitions are carried out without prior notice, often in the night, increases the trauma further, and the suddenness of it deepens the humiliation. The families, the children in particular, have to live under very stressful conditions, either with relatives or in a tent. They lose their sense of security when the shelter of their life is gone. Nightmares about the future, on how relatives get killed by soldiers, are frequent (ibid.).

Regarding this quantitative study of home demolitions, where the demolitions were motivated by military reprisals against resistance activities, there are other ways of studying the issue which awakens interest.

My approach is to present a field-based, qualitative study about a particular kind of homelessness, one where people have to move into temporary housing while legally processing for a building permit. A qualitative study of this kind can be a supplement to research if it describes people’s reactions in a balanced and thorough way. At the same time, there are limitations to this kind of study as its purpose is chiefly to examine peoples’ reactions to house demolitions, and their coping strategies. There are naturally other approaches to study this issue, which will be a welcome addition to existing research.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

In order to introduce the concept of resiliency in an illustrating way, I shall give an account for the

origins of the resiliency concept, its background and further development. Of old, research has mostly

focused on the unhealthy view of problems, not on the salubrious part. Therefore I shall discuss certain

theoretical perspectives of relevance to resiliency.

Resiliency – background and development

Resiliency can be defined in different ways and still carry similar meaning. It is central to follow conceptual definitions in the analysis and the decoding of peoples’ reactions on house demolitions.

Resilience indicates elasticity and vigour or ability to recover, to make a come-back (www.ne.se).

Borge’s (2005) definition contains the explanatory theory of good psychosocial function in children in spite of experience of risk. Further, Rutter (1999) defines resilience as relative resistance towards psychological experience of risk; the phenomenon of overcoming stress and adversity – relatively good results in spite of experiences of situations implying a high degree of risk for development of psychopathology.

Resiliency is a relatively new area of research. Even though extensive literature written has already been written on the topic, there is a need for more studies within the field, using different approaches and focusing on different problems. Generally, the Kauai-study is seen as the onset of resiliency research (Borge, 2005). It was conducted during a period of 40 years, starting 1955, by Werner and Smith (1977, 1982, 1992 and 2001) on children whom then were continuously studied during their life-time. This longitudinal study was about families with children in Hawaii that lived in poverty under risk. The idea was to study interaction between the years of growth and the environmental risks during childhood, youth and adulthood, and to not focus on the misery but on what made children exposed to risk come through in spite of adversity. These studies are very extensive and are estimated having a high quality from a scientific point of view.

When discussing resiliency there are certain factors involved – salubrious – protective factors (salutogenes), and insalubrious – vulnerability factors (patogenes) – which interact with each other.

Protective factors promotes health in circumstances that adds to individuals’ good health in spite of having been exposed to high degrees of and potentially illness-generating biological or psychosocial stress factors (www.ne.se). Vulnerability factors contain the succession of changes, which through influence of one or more illness-generating factors (known or unknown) leads to the final illness- manifestations (www.ne.se).

When vulnerability is the reigning factor there is high risk for developing PTSD, posttraumatic stress

disorder, which is a psychological disorder that can afflict persons whom are exposed to a traumatic event

beyond normal human experiences. The traumatic event can be witnessing or confronting death or death

threat, bodily harm or threat of bodily harm. Examples are war traumas, experiences of concentration

camps, torture, rape, assault or situations of mass trauma. The afflicted person’s reaction must have been

imprinted by intensive fear, helplessness or terror. The illness is characterized by three symptom groups;

a continuous and painful reliving of the event, for example in the shape of memories and nightmares; a continuous avoiding of thoughts, feelings or activities connected to the event, or difficulties to remember important details; lasting signs of being psychologically high-strung for example in the shape of concentration difficulties, sleeping disorders, irritability and tense watchfulness. The disorder has usually been preceded by a traumatic crisis reaction, which has not receded in a natural way. Biological, psychological and social factors can increase the risk for the normal reaction after a psychological trauma to transform into a psychological disorder. On treating PTSD there is a need for combining psychological and pharmacological measures (www.ne.se).

The focus can be on children and youth in risky environment; parents’ divorce, drugs, poverty and psychopathological issues etc, and other vulnerability factors. Two concepts oppose one another;

pathogenesis and salutogenesis. The first concept implies the studying of problems and the condition of disorder, while the latter implies good health in spite of adversity. We shall limit ourselves to the second groups, i.e. to individuals who manage in spite of all. Borge (2005) also describes resiliency as a starting point where focus is directed towards healthy development (protective factors) under risk, not only towards unhealthy development.

The variations as to how children react to risks and as to how resilient they are can be regarded as dependent upon both genetic and environmental influences (Rutter, 1999). New experiences can open up and imply turning points. Positive experiences are in themselves not protective but can be assisting the neutralization of some risk factors.

Political violence and resilience

Borge (2005) also discuss political violence and resilience. According to her, research shows that children exposed to political violence necessarily develop psychological disorders. Thus resilience does not mean managing without exposure to damage. Instead it is about processes that influence children positively in spite of damage. Within resiliency research focus is laid upon illustrating satisfactory function notwithstanding serious risk.

When it comes to political violence, there are situations when homes are exposed to war actions, or

when children become witnesses to terror and violence. Sometimes they participate actively in the

violence, voluntarily or forcibly. According to Borge, these kinds of risky environments are in line with

other kinds of serious risk, such as maltreatment, assault and serious lack of care.

Chapter 4: RESULTS – DECODING AND ANALYSIS

In order to give an appropriate view of the background of the data, it is necessary to begin with an account of the background to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and underlying reasons for house demolitions.

BACKGROUND TO HOUSE DEMOLITIONS

Review over the historical background to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Sixty years ago, in May 1948, the state of Israel was proclaimed an independent state, and war started.

About 750 000 Palestinians fled and Israel gained control over more than 80 % of Palestine. During the six-day-war in 1967 Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

After that war the UN passed resolution 242, which requested Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, and that both parties should recognize each others borders. This Israel did not do, which resulted in the out-break of the first Intifada 1987, the Palestinian up-rising against Israeli occupation (www.landguiden.se).

In the beginning of 1990, the Oslo peace process began between Israel and PLO with the result of the peace treaty of 1993. The Palestinian Authority received responsibility for certain areas, such as medical services, schools and security in those areas. However, control over the borders and the economy was so far denied them. All other areas were still controlled by Israel, thus the treaty did not imply any other changes for Palestinians than that Jewish settlement expansion increased doubly after 1993. Therefore the second Intifada began in 2000.

During 2002 Israel invaded a number of areas under Palestinian control since the Oslo treaty. Curfews and other restriction of movement increased unemployment and poverty among Palestinians. The separation barrier/wall was begun and has further aggravated the situation for Palestinians, as it is built extensively inside their own areas of living.

The state of Israel declares their actions to be based on security – to put obstacles in the way for terrorism in order to protect civilians. Others, like ICAHD, view the state’s actions as discriminatory in the context of ethnic cleansing, stating that the policy of not giving Palestinians building permits to build homes is one way to deny them space in society.

For more in-depth studying of the conflict, see www.landguiden.se.

Policy and process of house demolitions

The Israeli authorities are required to prevent illegal construction by the Planning and Building Law of

1965, and illegal building is defined as a criminal offence by two definitions: ‘Unlawful Use of Land’ and

‘Using a building without a Permit’ (Margalit, 2007).

There are two ways the authorities destroy homes: a) By ‘administrative demolition orders where demolition takes place without legal proceeding, and b) by ‘judicial demolition orders’, something that requires the bringing of an indictment and the conducting of legal proceedings.

The demolition order is attached to the wall of the house, it does not have to reach the homeowner as it is issued against the building itself. Demolition can then take place at any time, starting 24 hours after delivery of order, and the bulldozer can turn up without prior warning. An authority person has informed ICAHD that this is a policy of deterrence – fear and intimidation deter Palestinians from building.

The demolition is carried out by the officials and the demolition crew, accompanied by hundreds of soldiers, police officers, often in the early morning. The family is given a few minutes to take out their belongings, protesters – neighbours and activists – are removed by force, and the furniture is carried out by work crews. One of the emotional sufferings the homeowners go through is seeing their personal possessions lie slung out in the dirt, exposed to the rain or the sun. Then the bulldozer proceeds with the demolition (ibid.).

Father A: I have lived and grown up in the Old City of Jerusalem and in a refugee camp. After I finished my professional education I lived nine years in X-country to raise money and to build a family. I bought a piece of land in a village near Jerusalem and then applied for a building permit. I was turned down and applied again and again. Each time they gave me different reasons; my land was on ‘agricultural land’, to close to a bypass-road, the slope was too steep – all of Jerusalem is built on slopes, the city is on mountains! And each time I applied I had to pay $5000. After three refusals my money was running out and I decided to build anyway. Soon afterwards the demolition order arrived and I hired a lawyer to begin the legal proceedings to counter it. My house has since then been demolished four times and rebuilt as many.

Even if families try to comply with the indicated general regulations of housing, demolition is still a fact to take into consideration.

One family (B) tried to follow all the regulations and their money was taken and their home

demolished, without prior notice. The family is big and used to live in a beautiful house of two stories,

able to house them all. They lived there during ten years before receiving a demolition order. They were

told that if they paid a lot of fines, they might save the house, so they did that. Nonetheless, the police and

the caterpillars showed up one month later. This is a sign of exploitation of the economy of private

persons; many Palestinian families pay this kind of money and still get nothing out of it. It increases vulnerability as finances hit rock bottom.

There is a sardonic humorous saying among people exposed to and trying to expel demolitions from society: “The Municipality gives only one service to Palestinians – House Demolitions. And this service is carried out obligingly, with as little delay as possible.” Father A is telling the story of many others:

We are not trying to live in our home anymore, I have an Israeli ID and I am scared that if I live in X- village on the West bank and the Israelis discover it they will take my ID. Now I am living in another village. But I have to pay all the taxes anyway and I don’t get any municipal services because of the location of my village.

Applying for a building permit

Father A is frustrated by the injustice of obtaining a building permit:

I am trying to have a home, like anybody in the world, but I can’t get it. They abused me, my wife, my children, the activists, they have arrested me, and the activists as well. I tried to get a building permit!

I’m against anybody who starts building his home without getting a permit, but the Israeli Authorities are not giving it to the Palestinians. That’s why we are rebuilding.

What’s the use of a land, it’s yours, but you can’t use it. It’s registered in your name, in your family, but you can’t use it. So what’s the use of that? It’s exactly like – you are very thirsty, I am giving you a cup of water, telling you, this cup of water is yours – but don’t drink it. It is a very Kafkaesque system used by the Israeli Authorities not to give us building permits.

As Father A is the owner of the land where his home was, the example of the cup of water mentioned above is an apt metaphor: this is an extremely frustrating situation, in a way like torture. And when you are powerless in matters of justice and authorities on grounds of discrimination, there is a further vulnerability factor involved; judicial murder. Father A continues:

Then, when you start building your home, the picture changes. Then you are the criminal, they are the

good guys, who are catching the law breakers. ‘These Palestinians don’t want to get permits, and they

are building, that’s why we are demolishing the houses.’ They are giving the image to the world that we

are the criminals and the bad people, and they are the good guys who are catching the law breakers.

They push you to build, and when you build, they come to you. I feel that this is a kind of quiet transfer policy. They tell you to get out of here without telling it directly to us Palestinians. If they would say it directly to us they would find the international community and the entire world stand and say; what are you doing there? When they demolish your house they make your life miserable.

Mother E: The police came to the house once to threaten us that they will demolish the house even before the court made a judgment .

Son E: We knew that all our neighbors built their homes 'illegally', but we tried to do things right. I went to the municipality of Jerusalem to apply for a building permit, where I was instructed to do a general survey of the land. They wanted a survey of half of X-village! I asked an engineer friend for help, and he replied: "This is a huge job, a job for a government. It is impossible to do it as a private person". The cost of such a survey would have been well over US$160,000.

A political and critical overview of the demolition policy

Although the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an Occupying Power from demolishing homes, confiscating land in occupied territories, transferring its population into those territories or taking any steps that render its control permanent, Israel, since 1967, has systematically violated all these regulations. In addition, the Fourth Geneva Convention implores the Occupying Power to ensure the well- being of the populations under its control, a responsibility that Israel has clearly not lived up to as it has displayed nothing but contempt for human rights and International Humanitarian Law. More than 18.000 Palestinian homes have been demolished since 1967, and in 95 % of the cases families have never been charged with any security offence whatsoever. Hundreds of houses, belonging to Palestinians and Bedouins, are being demolished every year inside Israel. About 10.000 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, both on the West bank and within the pre -67 borders, carry demolition orders, some 150 are demolished each year because they lack building permits. A full 25.000 housing units are lacking in the Palestinian sector. In the meantime, 90.000 units have been built for Jews in Palestinian East Jerusalem, making Jews the majority population there. Few building permits are given to Palestinians, thus leaving them little choice but to build illegally and, as a consequence, risking demolition (da Sacco, 2007).

Political views on solutions to occupation and discrimination

There are many different views as to what would constitute changes in the political situation in Israel and

Palestine. Below are two quotes that serve as examples of different views, one turning to the international community for support, and the other seeing the situation as an internal matter. They do not contradict each other, and are more a question of beliefs. In my view they complement each other, as one concentrates on international advocacy and on demanding re-conceptualization from Israel, while the other hopes for an improved government in Israel. Professor Jeff Halper, anthropologist, offers his opinion:

If you want to bring a political change about, you have got to go to the International community, civil society, and governments to create pressures on Israel, for example boycott the West Bank sanctions through campaigns.

We are developing the idea that you can’t deal with the Occupation in the way of just ending it. We are trying to get at that, taking examples from my coming book were we say that in any colonial society, it's not just about to end colonialism, but to re-conceptualize. South Africa and New Zealand is an example of that: It's not easy, but it's at least an acknowledgement: we have this/that and we are trying to re-address the issues. Just giving up the Occupation (that's not going to happen!) is not enough. Israel has to address what it did in 1948; destroyed an entire society, culture and country. It's an ongoing process, crime that is happening still. Can Israel remain a country were Jews are privileged over others?

The issues facing Israel might be sharpened in the Occupation, but also the Galilee and the Negev is being occupied. Palestinians in Israel can't build there. (J. Halper, personal communication, 24

of September, 2007.)

Father A sees a solution mainly as an Israeli change of government:

There is one thing that is very important to us as Palestinians and Israelis. If we don’t solve the problems

here, nobody in the world can solve them. We are suffering as Palestinians, and so is the Israeli

Community. They are suffering less than we are, yes, but both nations are living in a bad situation, a not-

safe situation. I’m not happy to see an Israeli kid killed or a Palestinian kid killed because of what he did

in his life. Maybe this Israeli kid will, when he grows up, become a Jeff Halper that have a heart and

want to do good things in the world. Maybe the Palestinian kid will be a peace maker. What I am hoping

as a Palestinian is to have a brave Israeli leader who can overcome this lose-lose-situation we are living

in now, to a win-win-situation. Why an Israeli leader? Because they are the occupiers and they have to

end the occupation, it’s up to them.

These political views are expressed in the study as they represent the dual character of resilience: they express hope for and/or active actions on behalf of future equality for both Israelis and Palestinians.

HOUSE DEMOLITIONS AND THE FAMILIES – EFFECTS AND REACTIONS

As a field observer, I faced the difficulty of taking in and realizing the reality of house demolitions. It was hard to be close to the people and at the same time to keep the distance, although the latter was necessary if there were to be a study at all.

Frustration is always apparent in connection with the demolitions, but many of the other ways in which the families are affected are hidden. They try to defend their right of having a home in an identity perspective – when their home is threatened, so is their identity. The feeling of being defenceless is at the core of the problem – there is a continuous struggle, on one hand they see their human rights violated and on the other hand they need to comfort the anxieties of their children (da Sacco, 2007).

Children and adults in the Palestinian context

According to Punamäki et al., (2001), duties such as activity, creativity and experience of secure family situation add to resiliency-strengthening processes. Creativity was more about what the children were thinking than what they actually did – for example, imitating adults and pretending that the danger was not there, was a strategy which led to resilience, but only for a short-time period. The activity consisted in being involved in resistance towards occupation, and even if it included exposure to dangerous situations it was a protective factor against psychopathology. Passive children showed a higher degree of psychopathology than the active children. At the same time, the vulnerability in being exposed to violence, loss of family members or to get hurt is emphasized. This vulnerability increases the extent to which psychological disorders, parallel with resiliency processes, influence the psychological condition of children.

Punamäki et al., (2003) studied the spreading and the affirmation of PTSD among Palestinian children exposed to military violence. Mothers are included in the study, because their PTSD-symptoms influenced that of their children: when the mother’s PTSD-symptoms were high, their children’s, and especially their daughters’, symptoms were also high. The situations classified as exposing and traumatic are military violence and to be a witness when it happens to others.

Palestinian women’s stress levels and their coping with stress, as caused by military occupation, have

different aspects depending on the kind of stress indicator (Punamäki, 1986). Physical, open violence was

shown to be less stressful than nightly harassments and terror. In the latter case, where feelings of

helplessness and debasement occurred, the women had an increased sense of being victims. The occupational power invading homes in the nights resulted in low self-esteem, in contrast to the open resistance shown on the streets during daytime. This discovery led to the conclusion that in the night the collective community is reduced to isolated families instead of being a national collective. According to Punamäki (1986), women have similar experiences as Borge (2005) mentions about children; heroes in the day, fear and nightmares in the night.

Demolition without prior notice

“It was midnight. Soldiers came… They ordered us to take our things and go out. Our children were sleeping. It was very cold outside (da Sacco, 2007).”

During the initial contacts with Family A their history on house demolitions unfolded as they told their story. They are now fully aware of what it means to have their home demolished, but they realized the unfairness of what it means to be without protection and to be hit by authoritative abuse. The family had four years of ‘good luck’, meaning not having had their home demolished before reality hit them. A father’s (A) description of the chock gives a lasting impression:

The demolition team arrived at the door. 200 soldiers were standing around the house and their commander asked me: ‘Is this your house?’ I answered ‘Yes, it is.’ Then he said ‘No, it isn’t. This is our house now. You have fifteen minutes to get your family and belongings out of the home. We are going to demolish it.’ He came close to me with a rifle in his hands and I tried to push him away. Then the soldiers jumped on me, beat me and handcuffed me and threw me out of the house.

There is often no warning before the demolition team comes to the door. The feelings of insecurity and fear are increased as they can come any time during the day or the night. For family A their lunch was interrupted by the demolition team’s arrival. According to Punamäki et al. (1998), the suddenness of the event increases the trauma. It also deepens the humiliation severely. Moreover, the violence in the demolition itself is terrible to bear. When mother A suddenly was faced with fait accompli she acted on instinct:

I panicked and closed the door and locked it. The soldiers started to kick down the door, and then they

broke a window and threw tear gas into the house. I made it to make phone calls to get help and one of

the calls was to ICAHD. Then I passed out.

According to witnesses, that canister of tear gas was meant for outdoor use only (Halper, 2005). The vulnerability of the family members was thus further weakened by army devices. Father A continues:

The soldiers broke in to the house and found my wife unconscious and the children screaming and crying.

They ran through the open door and scattered. Meanwhile ICAHD had mobilized protesters and reporters. We saw how hired foreign workers took out the things from the house: bedroom sets, papers, pictures, we felt humiliation, invasion and rage. Then I lay helpless on the ground watching the bulldozer demolish my home. My neighbours tried to comfort me. I couldn’t at first see what had happened to my wife and children. My wife had been taken to the hospital and we found the children soon, except for my six-year-old son whom remained missing until the evening. We found him sleeping under a rock in a nearby field.

When everything is out of normal proportion the family is utterly exposed and out of control. This is a devastating situation that people find themselves in, and it is one that is very difficult to handle. On top of the recent experience of suddenly becoming homeless, these kinds of attacks increase the stress level of both parents and children. First they leave a lasting imprint on children. Secondly, parental anxiety increases when their young children are out of reach for a long time.

The demolition team consists of a large number of people. This can be interpreted in two ways, one more plausible than the other. The Israeli Authorities use the term security in their interactions with Palestinians as they see them as their enemy. However, the fact remains that the large number deflates any kind of opposition from the homeowners, as it deters them from resistance by inducing fear (Margalit, 2007). Father C gives an account for a typical demolition-scene and its course of event:

At nine o’clock in the morning, on a summer morning, approximately 100 soldiers, 20 police officers and four bulldozers arrived at our home. The soldiers removed some of the furniture from the house; when we refused to leave, the army used dogs to expel us from our home. When I protested, they put a stick to my throat leaving me in pain for days. By midday, the house was leveled; a pile of rubble was all that remained.

Family D thought they were lucky when they first received the demolition orders for the first house,

because they had two houses. The first house was demolished three days after the order came and the

family moved into their second house. This second house, however, was deemed to be ‘too close to the

wall’ (the separation barrier built by Israel) and was therefore also demolished in a brutal way. None of their personal belongings survived the demolition.

There is no time to get all the belongings out of the house. If there would be a prior notice, such as a certain date for the demolition, families could at least save more of their things. As father D describes the event:

I am originally from X-town. About six years ago I bought some land in X-village, mainly because my wife has a Jerusalem-ID. We were 24 people living in the house at the time of the demolition: I, my wives, fifteen children, four grandchildren, a daughter-in-law and my mother. The day of the demolition I was in X-town. My wife called me, but by the time I got to the site there was no house left, only a big pile of rubble.

In 200X family E started building their home without a permit, as most people are forced to do in the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem. However, their home was demolished twice. The first demolition was very tragic, but with much help from friends and relatives they managed to build a new house. Obtaining a building permit for the second house turned out to be very difficult. Although they tried several ways, the municipality refused to issue one. Mother E illustrates her anger and helplessness:

The demolition of this house, the second demolition, was even more horrible. Just before the soldiers arrived we had left the house, without knowing what was going to happen. Without a warning of any kind our house was demolished and therefore we were not able to save any personal belongings. When we arrived the demolition was almost finished.

When I got angry at the soldiers they put a gun on my head, threatening to kill me. The workers of the municipality stole a lot of money, jewelry, and cell phones before demolishing the house.

In other cases, the demolition takes place in the absence of its owners. In these cases, nobody is able to protect their belongings. They come home and realize that they have suddenly lost everything.

When they came to demolish the house of family F, the father climbed up on the roof in protest. ICAHD

and others were there and tried to argue with the army police, but it did not help. They told the father to

come down from the roof or they would come up and take him down by force. He climbed down and they

knocked the home down with a metal arm. He sat down and wept.

Children come home from school and expect their home to be where they left it in the morning. Many Palestinian children experiences demolitions this way, and have long-lasting problems afterwards. When they go to school they cannot know what is happening at home. They loose concentration in school and worry about the safety of their relatives at home. This happened to the children of mother D:

My children were in school when the house was demolished, when they came home there was no home to come to.

What is the meaning of ‘home’ – and of its destruction?

Home can be defined as a place of retiring from a world of conflicts; ‘a sanctuary in a heartless world’.

Some people view their homes as a place for rest and recovery. Others, especially women, see it as a place for work. For yet others it has become a place of violence and abuse. Thus there is no universal meaning of home (Borell & Karlsson, 2005).

A home is far more than a mere physical structure. It is a symbolic center, the site where the most intimate personal living takes place. It is the consistent physical presence in life and the location of familiar objects. For many Palestinians, a house has the added importance of being part of their ancestral land. Sons who marry build their homes near the parental home, thus preserving not only the physical proximity but also the continuity in the holding of ancestral lands. Ancestral land is important in an agrarian society. It is also important for refugees from 1948 and 1967, but for different reasons.

Demolition of homes, similar to their expropriation, is one more aspect of the assault on a person’s very being and identity (Margalit, 2007). Father A describes what home means to a family:

Do you know what a home is? Think about it. Even the word is one of the most intimate words we have, like ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘family’. The law defines it as ‘a man’s castle’, a place of special sanctity and meaning. It is the place where your most intimate life is carried out – where you live safely with your family, where you create your own world through the pictures on the wall, the furniture, the garden, where your kids live and have their toys and their basic sense of security. It’s a place you can call your own, that you have built with the money you earned and where you provide for your family.

We must not forget about all the families which have had their homes demolished, it is not only a home demolition, but it is a family demolition. The demolition of a house means the demolition of a family.

Everything changes after that. Demolition is the violent violation of the very essence of a family and of

every person in it.

Effects and reactions on various family members – men, children and women

Men, women and children experience demolitions differently as they have different roles in the family.

The families in this study have all traditional roles, with the father being the bread-winner and the mother being the caretaker of the home and the children. There is a significant difference between women and men regarding how they vent their feelings: as men usually have jobs and access to the world outside the home, they have a certain outlet for their frustrations that most of the women lack (Halper, 2005).

Men:

Father C expressed his feelings when he could not provide living space for his children because of the demolition:

I and my wife have seven children aged from three up to thirteen. The last year has been a difficult one:

we are in serious debt and, without a house of our own – our entire family now lives together in one room in my parents' house. Before the demolition, our children had plenty of room to play and grow; but with nine people in one room, there is little space to sleep, let alone have a normal childhood. We are homeless, I am unemployed, and we are still traumatized from the demolition. We have become embittered and depressed.

Men are deeply humiliated, as demolition means they are unable to protect their families and to provide them with basic shelter. Demolition further signifies loss of the living bond with your family’s land and your personal and national heritage. It happens frequently that men weep as their homes are destroyed (and a long time afterwards), but they also experience rage, swear vengeance and intend to rebuild – or else retreat from active family life (Margalit, 2007). Father A expresses his feelings of inadequacy of protecting his children in terms of feeling helpless and humiliated before them:

My fundamental human right of providing a shelter for my family was violated. But it goes much deeper

than that. I have lost the role of protector of my children. When Israeli warplanes and Apache helicopters

flew low over our apartment to attack the area we lived in, my kids became so scared they couldn’t stand

on their legs, and their stomachs hurt. I said to them: ‘Don’t worry, I am here. I’ll protect you.’ My nine-

year-old daughter said: ‘You can’t protect us. We saw what the soldiers did to you when they handcuffed

you and threw you outside when they demolished our home. You can’t protect us.’ Such words of a

daughter to her father are like putting a knife in my heart.

The humiliation of not having a home for his family anymore makes father F feeling helpless and frustrated:

Now we live in a tent from the Red Cross, me, my wife, children and my old mother. And winter is coming. My mother doesn’t understand why the house was demolished. She never hurt anybody in her life. I want somebody to explain it to her, but she still can’t understand.

The only thing I want is to have a home and a normal life, to be equal.

Children:

Children who have always looked to the parents for security are traumatized when this basic trust is uprooted. The destruction is multiple; the physical home, the security of parental authority and their standard of living, all these fundamental things are undermined. The home had a roof, walls, windows and doors: it was a place of belonging in the full context of family-life. They find both living with relatives and in a tent to be stressful as the shelter of their life is gone and nightmares about the future take its place (Punamäki et al., 1998). This is also expressed by the father A:

My kids are now scared all the time. They will not go to the bathroom in the night unless my wife comes and takes them by the hand. Before the demolition their grades in school were excellent. Now they get lower marks and they have trouble concentrating.

After exposure to one kind of military violence children are vulnerable to other incidents. As the father A said about his daughter’s reaction to the threat of violence:

During the Intifada, when Israeli tanks drove up to the rented apartment we lived in and pointed their turrets at our building, my 14-year-old daughter became so terrified she was struck blind. I rushed her to the hospital and after two hours her sight returned.

For children, just seeing the Civil Administration field supervisors speeding around their village in their white Toyota jeeps, is traumatic, as these vehicles are announcing the arrival of the demolition team (Halper, 2005).

Very small children have no perception of the meaning of having a home destroyed, as father B and F

gives witness about:

Father B: One of my kids (only two years old) was shocked by the events and said to a police man: ‘Put it back as it was! Where am I going to sleep now?’

Father F, the day after the demolition: Look what they did (indicating the ruins of his home). This is my son’s home. That rock was his room. He had a nice room, he had everything. But there’s nothing you can do. Seven years of work destroyed in five minutes, it’s heartbreaking.

“My little daughter is still looking for her toys in the place where her room used to be (da Sacco, 2007).”

The older the children are, the more their perception is developed, and they are able to understand that certain events can happen again in the future. Father D:

The Israeli Civil Administration demolished our house over some of our belongings because my family was not given enough time to remove them. My younger children wanted to get the rest of the stuff out but were forcibly removed from the site. Two of my children and my mother needed continual medical treatment after this.

My children have many psychological problems since it happened. My then 7-year-old son, for example, was beaten up by soldiers and still has bedwetting problems.

Older children and teenagers come face to face with reality when they are deprived of education.

According to Ashrawi (1995), a Palestinian spokesperson on political issues, Palestinians see education as something very important. Father A was sad to see that his son had to drop out of school in order to support the family economically:

My eldest son had to leave school at the age of 16 to help support the family in its financial distress. He is now a casual labourer on the Israeli job market.

Abed et al. (2002) have studied emotional disorders in Palestinian children in extreme situations, such as

during direct war attacks against the refugee camps where they live. PTSD is considered the most

common diagnosis among the children and their families.