WhoProfits report on G4S

8/3/2019 WhoProfits report on G4S

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/whoprofits-report-on-g4s 1/34

PROFITSWHOThe Israeli

OccupationIndustry

The Case of G4S........ .... ....... .... .. ... ................... .... .............

Private Security Companiesand the Israeli Occupation

March 2011

http://www.whoprofits.org/








The Coalition o Women or Peace brings

together ten eminist peace organizations

and non-aliated activist women in Israel.

Founded soon ater the outbreak o the Sec-

ond Intiada in 2000, CWP today is a leading voice against the occupation,

committed to eminist principles o organization and Jewish-Palestinian

partnership, in a relentless struggle or a just peace. CWP continuously

voices a critical position against militarism and advocates or radical social

and political change. Its work includes direct action and public campaign-ing in Israel and internationally; a pioneering investigative project expos-

ing the occupation industry; outreach to Israeli audiences and political

empowerment o women across communities; and, capacity-building and

support or grassroots activists and initiatives or peace and justice.

PROFITSWHOThe Israeli

OccupationIndustry

Who Profts rom the Occupation is a re-

search project o the Coalition o Women or

Peace. Initiated in response to the Palestin-

ian call or boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israel, this research

project is dedicated to exposing the commercial involvement o Israeli and

international companies in the continuing Israeli control over Palestinian

and Syrian land. The project publishes inormation about these compa-

nies on its website (www.whoprots.org), produces in-depth reports andserves as an inormation center.

www.coalitionowomen.org | [email protected]

www.whoprots.org | [email protected]

P.O.Box 29214 Tel Aviv 61292,Israel

Tel: 972-3-5281005

The Case of G4S Private Security Companies and the Israeli Occupation 2







mailto:cwp%40coalitionofwomen.org?subject=

mailto:whoprofits%40yahoo.com?subject=

mailto:whoprofits%40yahoo.com?subject=

mailto:cwp%40coalitionofwomen.org?subject=


http://www.coalitionofwomen.org/




Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

1. About G4S ............................................................................................................ 6

2. Involvement in the Occupation ................................................................. 7

2.1 Providing security systems to incarceration

acilities or Palestinian political prisoners ....................................... 7

2.1.1 The Oer Camp – a prison in occupied territory ......... ..... 8

2.1.2 Ketziot, Megiddo and Damon– “security prisons”

inside Israel or Palestinian political prisoners ................ 11

2.1.3 The Kishon and Jerusalem Interrogation

and Detention Centers – reports o torture

and abuse o Palestinian prisoners .............. .............. .... ... . 13

2.1.4 Palestinian children in Israeli incarceration acilities ...... 15

2.2 Providing equipment and maintenance services toIsraeli military checkpoints in the West Bank ................ .............. 17

2.3 Providing security services to businesses in settlements ......... 20

2.4 Providing security systems or the Israeli policeheadquarters in the West Bank .............. .... .............. ............... ........ 22

3. International Activity ........................................................................... 24

3.1 G4S operations in the Netherlands ......................................... 24

4. Examining Company Responses ....................................................... 26

4.1 Statements by the Company .................................................... 26

4.2 The Legal opinion o Pro. Hjalte Rasmussen .......................... 29

4.3 Company Response rom March 11, 2011 ............................. 32




Introduction

A dramatic change is taking place in the

orm o Israeli control in the occupied Pal-

estinian territories (oPt), whereby, in addi-

tion to soldiers and security ocials, one

begins to notice the growing presence o

private security personnel. A number o

Israeli security companies operate in theoPt, taking over some o the tasks that

were traditionally executed by the army.

Private companies provide a wide range o

services to civilian and military occupation

structures, including supplying circum-

erential security systems to settlements,

maintaining security equipment in check-

points, employingsecurity personnel

at checkpoints and

securing construc-

tion sites o set-

tlements and the

Separation Wall.

The variety o op-

erations o private

security companies

illustrates, perhaps

most lucidly, that

the Israeli occupa-

tion today is sus-

tained not only by state military orces,

but also by a multitude o commercial and

economic orces, whose activities in the

oPt are interwoven into the establishment

o control itsel.

Since 2007, Who Prots has been inves-tigating corporate activity in the occu-

pation, exposing the various means o

involvement o local and international

corporations rom various industries: con-

struction and real-estate, inrastructure

development, manuacturing, agricul-

ture, tourism and more. The research has

A private security guard and a emale soldier inspecting a car at the Qalandia checkpoint.

Photo: Tamar Fleishman.




exposed, time and again, that companies

involved in the occupation neglect, and

sometimes are also involved in the open

breach o international humanitarian law

and human rights law.

While all these examples raise the matter

o human rights violations and corporate

accountability, we believe that the case o

private security companies (PSCs) is sali-

ent. The importance o understanding the

involvement o PSCs in the occupation istwoold: rst, it highlights the prominence

o the Israeli security industry in the Israeli

market. Today, the security industry is the

astest growing economic sector in Israel,

and has considerable political inuence,

which in turn leads to more privatization

and increased involvement o PSCs in

military activities. Second, given their in-creased involvement, security personnel

are becoming increasingly likely to par-

take in or witness human rights violations.

Moreover, in some cases private contrac-

tors can be used by the Israeli authorities

as a means o “outsourcing” Israeli human

rights violations and escaping govern-

ment accountability.1

This report ocuses on the Israeli branch

o the British-Danish security conglomer-

ate Group4Securicor (G4S). Our research

has identied our types o activities per-

ormed by G4S Israel, which participate in

diferent acets o the Israeli occupation.

First, the company has provided security

equipment and services to incarceration

acilities holding Palestinian political pris-

oners inside Israel and in the occupied

West Bank. Second, the company ofers

security services to businesses in settle-

ments. Third, the company has provided

equipment and maintenance services toIsraeli military checkpoints in the West

Bank. Finally, the company has also pro-

vided security systems or the Israeli po-

lice headquarters in the West Bank.

This report provides a thorough account

on G4S activities, based on desk studies

and eld research. The desk studies in-cluded the collection and analysis o in-

ormation rom various public sources,

including: company publications, such as

brochures and websites, G4S responses to

queries by corporate accountability agen-

cies, inormation rom the Israeli Registrar

o Companies and rom newspaper arti-

cles. Field research included site visits in

settlements where G4S operations take

place, visits to checkpoints and to incar-

ceration acilities.

1 For an overview on this role o PSCs in the occupation see:

“The Privatization o the Checkpoints and the Late Occupa-

tion”, Eilat Maoz, available online at: http://whoprots.org/

Article%20Data.php?doc_id=705

http://whoprofits.org/Article%20Data.php?doc_id=705







1. About G4S

2 G4S Annual Report 2009, available at http://bit.ly/hKOhRm.

3 Source: G4S Israel website (www.g4s.co.il), see: http://bit.ly/

dWio9s. For more inormation about the company, see thecompany pages on the Who Prots website: http://www.

whoprots.org/Company%20Ino.php?id=596 and http://www.whoprots.org/Company%20Ino.php?id=595 .

4

http://bit.ly/0aF9Z

G4S is a British-Danish security conglom-

erate that operates in more than 110

countries worldwide and employs nearly

600,000 workers. The company ofers a

wide spectrum o services to both public

and private sectors, including: operating

private security personnel in cooperation

with municipalities, governments andprivate businesses, in airport and seaport

security, the guarding o buildings, monu-

ments and events, as well as money-deliv-

eries to banks and ATMs.

The current shareholding makeup o the

company is the result o a merger be-

tween the British Securicor company and

the Danish Group 4 Falck, which took

place in 2004, establishing G4S, which is

now worth more than 1 billion dollars. The

company is traded on the London Stock

Exchange and the Nordic Nasdaq-OMX.

Major shareholders are Skagen Stichting

Administratiekantoor (Jørgen Philip-Sø-

rensen) (12.19%), BlackRock (6.49%) andLegal and General Group (3.68%).2

In 2002, the Danish security company

Group 4 Falck bought one o Israel’s big-

gest providers o security services: Hash-

mira. G4S now holds 90% o the shares o

its Israeli subsidiary, G4S Israel.3

In September 2010, Hashmira ap-plied to the UN Global Compact

program as a subsidiary o G4S.4 In

the application letter, the compa-

ny stated that it supported the 10

principles o the platorm, includ-

ing the protection o internation-

ally proclaimed human rights and

that they are not complicit in hu-

man rights abuses. The ollowing

pages cast doubt on the accuracy

o this claim.G4S logo.

http://bit.ly/hKOhRm

http://bit.ly/dWio9s


http://www.whoprofits.org/Company%20Info.php?id=596



http://bit.ly/f0aF9Z

http://bit.ly/f0aF9Z






http://bit.ly/hKOhRm




2. Involvement in the Occupation

2.1 Providing security systems toincarceration facilities for

Palestinian political prisoners

According to the company’s own publi-

cations, in July o 2007 the technologicaldepartment o G4S Israel signed a con-

tract with the Israel Prison Authority (IPA)

to provide security systems or the major

IPA acilities.5 Specically, the company

declared that it provided systems or the

Oer acility in the occupied territory, and

or diferent acilities inside Israel, includ-

ing the Ketziot, Megiddo and Damon pris-ons as well as or the Kishon (“Jalameh”)

and Jerusalem (“Russian Compound”)6

detention acilities. In this section we re-

view the operation o each o these acili-

ties which are used or the interrogation

and incarceration o Palestinian political

prisoners. We show that the operation o

these acilities is not only in contradiction

to many aspects o international law, but

that there is also evidence indicating that

Palestinian prisoners undergo torture and

abuse in these detention acilities.

In the oPt, Israel operates a system o dis-

criminatory separation, by law. In a single

occupied territory, Israel applies one set

o laws to Palestinians and another set o

laws to Israelis. Being subject to the Israeli

judicial system, settlers, as well as other

Israeli citizens, enjoy liberties and legal

guarantees that are denied to Palestin-

ian deendants in the occupied territory

who are charged with similar ofenses.

For example, an Israeli citizen arrested in

the West Bank must be brought beore a

judge within 24 hours (or 48 hours in se-

vere cases); however, a Palestinian can beheld or 8 days beore his or her arrest is

brought in ront o a military judge.

In addition, the substantive law that ap-

plies to Israeli and Palestinian suspects is

substantially diferent: Israelis are tried ac-

cording to Israeli law, and Palestinians ace

charges based on military and security law,

which includes many ofenses that are not

considered ofenses in the Israeli legal co-

dex and which stipulates graver penalties.

For example, under the applicable mili-

5

http://bit.ly/S19BE6

http://bit.ly/S19BE

http://bit.ly/fS19BE








tary law, incitement is dened as “The at-

tempt, verbally or otherwise, to inuence

public opinion in the Area in a way thatmay disturb the public peace or public or-

der” (section 7(a) o the Order Concerning

Prohibition o Activities o Incitement and

Hostile Propaganda (no.101), 1967), and

carries a 10 year maximum sentence (See

section 4.2 below or more on this issue).

Consequently, Palestinians are dened as

‘security’ prisoners, not only when ound

guilty o committing militant acts, but

also when they are associated with any

elony o a political character, such as

belonging to an unauthorized political

organization, participating in nonviolent

demonstrations and the like. Thus, Pales-tinians can be arrested and imprisoned

or practically any orm o public activ-

ity regardless o whether they present a

legitimate security threat to the State o

Israel. According to Addameer, The Pales-

tinian prisoner support and human rights

organization, Israel arrests and detains

Palestinians as a means o repressing thenational movement or liberation and sel-

determination.7 Addameer reports that at

the end o 2010 there were 5,935 Palestin-

ian political prisoners in Israeli jails. 207 o

them were administrative detainees who

are held without charge, 209 child prison-ers, including 29 under the age o 16 and

10 members o the Palestinian Legislative

Council.8

Prisoners in these prisons are deprived o

many o the basic rights that other prison-

ers enjoy, such as access to a telephone,9

there are serious limitations on reading

materials, on receiving and sending let-

ters and, as mentioned above, on the visi-

tation rights o amily members. As expli-

cated in length below, political prisoners

are also more likely to undergo torture.10

2.1.1 The Ofer Camp – a prison

in occupied territory

G4S Technologies provided a perimeter

deense system or the walls o the Oer

acility and installed a central command

room inside, rom which the entire acility

could be monitored. The Oer compound

includes a prison, an army camp and amilitary court. This Israeli prison is speci-

cally dedicated to Palestinian political de-

tainees and prisoners.

7 See Addameer website at: http://addameer.ino

8 http://bit.ly/eQ6BTe

9 See, or instance, Civil Petition (Beer Sheva) 54251-08-10

Amad Srag (Prisoner) v. State o Israel - Prison Services De-cember 14, 2010, available online at http://www.nevo.co.il/

psika_html/minhali/MM-10-08-52451-562.htm

10 A series o reports and publications about the torture o Palestinian prisoners in Israel are provided by the PublicCommittee against Torture in Israel, see: http://www.stop-

torture.org.il/en

http://addameer.info/

http://bit.ly/eQ6BTe

http://www.nevo.co.il/psika_html/minhali/MM-10-08-52451-562.htm


http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en






http://bit.ly/eQ6BTe

http://addameer.info/



11 For a detailed report on the Israeli military court systemand its implications vis-a-vis the rights o Palestinians, seethis report by the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din:

“Backyard Proceedings: The Implementation o Due Process

Rights in the Military Courts in the Occupied Territories”,available online at http://bit.ly/ihkB8I. For regular reportsrom the Oer court, see Machsom Watch: http://machsom-

watch.org/en/daily-reports/military-courts.


The Judea Military Court unctions rom

within the Oer acility. This military court

is dedicated to legal procedures againstPalestinian residents o the West Bank.

The judges are military personnel ap-

pointed by the high military commander

o the West Bank and the court operates

according to the military codex which ap-

plies only to the Palestinian residents o

the occupied territory.

Despite being in the West Bank, the com-

pound is located in what Israel denes as

the “Seam Zone”, on the Jerusalem-Ramal-

lah road. Thus, access by West Bank Pales-

tinians to this acility is highly restricted,both or amily members o detainees

and or their lawyers, and is dependent

on the receipt o a special access permit.

The act that the court is located in this

acility severely limits the possibility that

the public, and in particular the Palestini-

an public rom the West Bank, may attend

court sessions.11

The Oer Prison. Photo: Oren Ziv, activestills.org

http://bit.ly/ihkB8I

http://machsomwatch.org/en/daily-reports/military-courts




http://bit.ly/ihkB8I




Abdullah Abu Rahmahin the Ofer Prison

Abdullah Abu Rahmah, the coordinator

o the Bil’in Popular Committee Against

the Wall and Settlements, was arrestedlast year12 by soldiers who raided his

home at the middle o the night, and

was subsequently indicted beore an Is-

raeli military court13 on unsubstantiated

charges, which included stone-throwing

and arms possession. Abu Rahmah was

cleared o both the stone-throwing and

arms possession charg-

es, but was convicted14

o organizing illegal

demonstrations and in-

citement.

The court did, however,

nd Abu Rahmah guilty

o two o the most dra-

conian articles in mili-

tary legislation: incite-

ment, and organizing

and participating in

illegal demonstrations. It did so based

only on testimonies o minors who were

arrested in the middle o the night and

denied their right to legal counsel. AbuRahmah’s conviction was subject to

harsh international criticism by The EU

oreign policy chie, Catherine Ashton,15

the Spanish Parliament,16 renowned

South Arican human right activist, Arch-

bishop Desmond Tutu,17 Amnesty Inter-

national18 and Human Rights Watch.19

12 http://bit.ly/gqOXg 13 http://bit.ly/gcp5Jt

14 http://bit.ly/9onlD0 15 http://bit.ly/967x7X

16 http://bit.ly/g0nabp 17 http://bit.ly/dcUEUq

18 http://bit.ly/dci4QX 19 http://bit.ly/d3uC7

Photo: Oren Ziv, activstills.org

http://bit.ly/fgqOXg

http://bit.ly/gcp5Jt

http://bit.ly/9onlD0

http://bit.ly/967x7X

http://bit.ly/g0nabp

http://bit.ly/dcUEUq

http://bit.ly/dci4QX

http://bit.ly/df3uC7

http://bit.ly/df3uC7

http://bit.ly/dci4QX

http://bit.ly/dcUEUq

http://bit.ly/g0nabp

http://bit.ly/967x7X

http://bit.ly/9onlD0

http://bit.ly/gcp5Jt

http://bit.ly/fgqOXg




20 http://bit.ly/gsC4Y2

21 See: http://bit.ly/9hAslt. In addition, Art. 66 states that

courts should sit in the occupied country. Courts o appealshall preerably sit in the occupied country. For an extensiveoverview, rom a legal perspective, on prisons or Palestinian

political prisoners inside Israel see: Michael Sard, “Devil’s Is-land: Transer o Palestinian Detainees to Prisons within Isra-el” in Abeer Baker and Anat Matar (eds), Threat - Palestinian

Political Prisoners in Israel, London: Pluto Press, orthcomingon May 2010.

2.1.2 Ketziot, Megiddo and Damon –

“security prisons” inside Israel

for Palestinian political prisoners

Additionally, the company reports that it

has provided the entire security system

or the Ketziot Prison, a central command

room in the Megiddo Prison and securi-

ty systems in the Damon Prison.20 These

prisons are dened as prisons or ‘secu-

rity prisoners’, which, in act, means that

they hold Palestinian political prisoners

rom Israel and rom the occupied terri-

tory. In a clear violation o international

law, prisoners rom the occupied terri-

tory are held in acilities inside Israel and

not in the occupied territory. The Fourth

Geneva Convention prohibits any reloca-

tion o prisoners rom occupied territory

to the occupying country. Art. 77 o the

convention reads: “Protected persons ac-

cused o ofences shall be detained in theoccupied country, and i convicted they

shall serve their sentences therein.”21

The website o the Israeli Prison Authority

(IPA) includes the ollowing description

o the Ketziot Prison: “Ketziot Prison was

rst opened in 1988 ater the outbreak o

the First Intiada [the Palestinian uprising]

and was shut down during the implemen-

tation o the Oslo Accords and the release

o the security prisoners. Ater operation

“Deense Shield” in 2002 [during the sec-

ond Palestinian uprising] the prison was

renovated and reopened. […] There are

2,200 security prisoners in this prison,prisoners that are

detained until the

completion o legal

proceedings and

administrative pris-

oners. […] Prison-

ers are transerred

to this prison rom

other IPA acilities,

rom interrogation

acilities o the Gen-

eral Security Service The Damon Prison. According to the Israel Prison Authority, Damon Prison is populated by500 prisoners and detainees, all are Palestinian residents o the West Bank. Photo: Hanay.

http://bit.ly/gsC4Y2

http://bit.ly/9hAslt

http://bit.ly/9hAslt

http://bit.ly/gsC4Y2




(the Shabak) and rom detention acilities o

the Israeli Army.”22 Similarly, the IPA website

includes the ollowing inormation about the

Damon Prison: “The prison is populated by

500 prisoners and detainees, Palestinian ille-

gal aliens,23 residents o the West Bank.”24

Moreover, the location o these prisons makes

visitation arrangements or amily members

living in the West Bank dependent on the re-

ceipt o special permits, which is extremely

complicated and almost impossible or some.Only immediate amily members can apply

or these permits, and they are reused many

times due to ‘security considerations’.25 There

are many prisoners who have not seen their

parents, children or spouses or the entire du-

ration o their imprisonment. In particular, in

these two prisons, prisoners are only entitled

to one visit per month, by immediate amily

members. Prisoners whose amilies live in the

Gaza Strip have not been able to see any o

their amily members since 2007.26

22 http://www.ips.gov.il/NR/exeres/9529905B-2595-41C9-A6BE-1FB9F991F050.htm

23 “Palestinian illegal aliens” is a term used by the Israeli authoritiesto describe Palestinians rom the West Bank and Gaza who werecaught inside Israel without the necessary permits. These are mostoten people who entered Israel in search o work, despite not hav-ing work permits, which are extremely hard to obtain. For more onthe permit regime that determines who can receive the permits toenter Israel see the “Invisible Prisoners” report by Machsom Watch,available online at archive.machsomwatch.org/docs/InvisiblePris-oners-English.pd .

24 http://www.ips.gov.il/NR/exeres/0B230C72-16EA-4E59-B51F-D4ABDEEF58D1,rameless.htm

25 Further inormation on the conditions o detention o PalestinianPrisoners, including prevention o amily visits and communicationsee http://www.addameer.org/detention/background.html

26 See: “On the Anniversary o the Israeli Ofensive on Gaza,Addameer Calls Attention to the 686 Gazans Detained in IsraeliPrisons”, 27 December 2010, available online at http://addameer.ino/?p=1844

The location o Israeli prisons and de-tention acilities or Palestinian politicalprisoners rom the occupied territoryor which G4S provided equipment. In a

clear violation o international law, pris-oners rom the occupied territory areheld in acilities inside Israel and not inthe occupied territory. Source: Who Profts

http://www.ips.gov.il/NR/exeres/9529905B-2595-41C9-A6BE-1FB9F991F050.htm


http://archive.machsomwatch.org/docs/InvisiblePrisoners-English.pdf


http://www.ips.gov.il/NR/exeres/0B230C72-16EA-4E59-B51F-D4ABDEEF58D1,frameless.htm


http://www.addameer.org/detention/background.html

http://addameer.info/?p=1844




http://www.addameer.org/detention/background.html










Activists protest in ront o Kishon Prison on February 21, 2009, calling or the immediate re-lease o political prisoners. Photo: Oren Ziv, activestills.org

It is also important to note that these are

the three prisons in which Palestinian ad-

ministrative detainees are held. Currently,

there are more than 200 such prisonersin these prisons. Administrative detain-

ees are held with-

out being charged

with any crime or

violation and are

imprisoned or

months and even

years without re-

lease or even a trial

date. The incarcer-

ation o adminis-

trative detainees

is in violation o in-

ternational human

rights law.27

2.1.3 The Kishon and JerusalemInterrogation and DetentionCenters – torture and abuseof Palestinian prisoners

The technological division o G4S Israel

provided security systems or the Kishon

(also called “Jalameh” or “Al Jalame”) and

Jerusalem (“Russian Compound”) deten-

tion acilities.28 Data that was accumulat-

ed by human rights and prisoner rights

organizations in Israel show that there

have been many cases o torture and

abuse o Palestinian prisoners in both o

these detention acilities. According to

these organizations, Palestinian detain-

ees who are interrogated in these deten-tion acilities report being shackled in

painul positions or days, being deprived

o sleep, denied medical care, beaten and

exposed to extreme temperatures or

long periods o time. Additionally, de-

tainees report undergoing psychological

torture, including being threatened that

i they do not coness, close amily mem-

bers will be brought in or interrogation

and torture, will be imprisoned or long

periods o time and their homes demol-

ished.

27 For more inormation about administrative detainees see:http://www.btselem.org/english/Administrative_Deten-tion/ and http://www.addameer.org/detention/admin_de-

ten.html

28 See press releases by G4S Israel: http://bit.ly/huDZL andhttp://bit.ly/S19BE.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Administrative_Detention/


http://www.addameer.org/detention/admin_deten.html


http://bit.ly/hfuDZL



http://bit.ly/hfuDZL








29 http://www.acri.org.il/he/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/hit1265.pd

30 http://bit.ly/eU29lB

31 “Suspicion: in violation o the ethical code, doctors didnot report a Palestinian detainee who was tortured by GSSinterrogators”, Dan Even, Ha’aretz¸March 14, 2010, availableonline (in Hebrew) at: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spag-

es/1156226.html

According to the company publications,

company systems were installed in the

Kishon Detention Facility during 2007.

Reports by human rights organizations

show that while there is ample evidence

o torture incidents rom the time beore

the systems were installed, there is a con-

siderable amount o evidence o such in-

cidents which have happened since.

For instance, in March, 2011, The PublicCommittee Against Torture in Israel, The

Association For Civil Rights In Israel, Yesh

Din, HaMoked: Center or the Deence o

the Individual, Adalah - The Legal Center

or Arab Minority Rights in Israel, and Phy-

sicians or Human Rights – Israel submit-

ted a petition to the Israeli High Court o

Justice (HCJ) on behal o ten Palestinian

plaintifs, all o whom testiy that they

underwent torture during their interro-

gations by the GSS. The petition includes

the testimony o a resident o Tul Karm in

the West Bank who was arrested on June

26, 2008 and held in the Kishon acility. He

reported that he was exposed to repeatedabuse during his three months o interro-

gation there.29

In a diferent petition submitted to the

HCJ, a Palestinian rom the West Bank city

o Jenin reported that as a result o un-

dergoing torture during his interrogation

in the Kishon acility ater being arrested

in February o 2008 he lost all sensation

in his eet and is still sufering rom a di-

culty in walking. His parents, who were

brought to see him while he was incarcer-

ated there, reported that when they met

him his body was severely bruised, hishands were swollen, he could not walk

without support and he was in acute

mental distress.30

In another case, which was reported in

the Israeli Ha’aretz daily newspaper, a 19

year old Palestinian was severely beaten

by his interrogators while detained in the

Kishon acility ater his arrest in April o

2008. He was transerred to a hospital or

medical care during his interrogation, su-

ering rom bleeding rom multiple cuts in

his head and rom respiratory distress. He

reported that during his interrogation he

had been tortured and severely humili-ated by GSS interrogators.31

http://www.acri.org.il/he/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/hit1265.pdf


http://bit.ly/eU29lB

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1156226.html




http://bit.ly/eU29lB






2.1.4 Palestinian children in Israeliincarceration facilities

Children prisoners are another major is-

sue which raises concern in the exami-

nation o the treatment o Palestinians

in the Israeli incarceration acilities. A

recent report by Deence or Children

International – Palestine Section (DCI-

Palestine), which was submitted to the

European Parliament Sub-Committee on

Human Rights on March 9, 2011, sheds

light on this issue. The report exposes

that approximately 700 Palestinian chil-

dren rom the occupied West Bank are

prosecuted each year in the Israeli mili-tary court system ater being arrested,

interrogated and detained by Israeli se-

curity orces. For instance, on 31 January

2011 there were 8 children between the

ages o 12-15 held in the Oer prison, and

another two held

in the Megiddo

prison. At the

same time, there

were 85 children

between the ages

o 16-17 in Oer,

66 in Megiddo

and another 3 in-

carcerated in theKishon acility.32

In particular, the

report exposes

that ater being

arrested children

are interrogated

without the pres-ence o a lawyer or a amily member, and

the interrogations are not recorded using

audio or visual means, so there cannot

be an independent oversight o the pro-

On average, 700 Palestinian children rom the occupied West Bank are prosecut-ed each year in the Israeli military court system ater being arrested, interrogatedand detained by Israeli security orces. Palestinian children rom the age o 16 areprosecuted and judged as adults. Photo: Husam Abu Allan

32 “Palestinian Child Prisoners”, submitted to EuropeanParliament Sub-Committee on Human Rights on 9 March,2011 by Deence or Children International – Palestine Sec-

tion, p. 8. Available online at: http://bit.ly/hFt16N, p. 8. An-

other 24 Palestinian children rom the West Bank betweenthe ages o 12-15 and 33 children between the ages o 16-17 are held in the Rimonim Prison.

http://bit.ly/hFt16N

http://bit.ly/hFt16N




33 Ibid, p. 4. These “conessions” are not only used or theincrimination o the child, but is oten used as evidence inthe legal procedures against others. See, or instance thecase o Abdallah Abu Rachma as detailed in section 2.1.1above.

34 Ibid, p. 15.

35 Military Order 1651 – Sections 1, 136 and 168.

36 For more inormation about Palestinian minors in Israeliincarceration acilities see: http://www.addameer.org/de-tention/children.html. See also article J(5) in the EuropeanParliament resolution o 4 September 2008 on the situationo Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, available at: http://bit.

ly/gxeMXP

ceedings. Additionally, the report states

that “children are requently threatened

and physically assaulted during interro-

gation oten resulting in the provision o

a coerced conession, or the signing o

documents which the child has not had a

chance to read or understand.”33

The Kishon acility is where many o the

interrogations o children take place. The

DCI-Palestine exposes ill-treatment o children in this acility:

Since February 2008, DCI-Palestine

has documented a number o highly

disturbing cases involving the ill-

treatment and torture o Palestinian

children at Al Jalame [Kishon] Interro-

gation and Detention Centre, outside

Haia, in Israel. The reports indicate

that children are being held in solitary

confnement, in one case or 65 days,

in small, flthy cells in which the light

is let on 24 hours a day. The children

also report being interrogated at Al

Jalame in extreme circumstances.34

Children as young as 12 are brought in

ront o the military court system; many

o these trials take place in the Oer acil-

ity. While in the Israeli civilian legal sys-

tem the age o adulthood is dened as

18, in the military court system, which

the Palestinian rom the occupied terri-

tory are subjected to, children rom the

age o 16 are prosecuted and judged as

adults.35

During their incarceration in the Oer,

Megiddo and Kishon prisons children are

many times held together with adults,

without separation or proper arrange-

ments. The report has ound that these

children are not provided with the ade-

quate ood, water or shelter, have no tel-

ephone communication with their ami-

lies and receive inadequate medical care.

Additionally, children in the incarceration

acilities receive inadequate education

services and in some cases, no education

at all.36

http://www.addameer.org/detention/children.html


http://bit.ly/gxeMXP









37 ICJ Advisory Opinion 2004/28. Full text o the decision

available at: http://bit.ly/8XinJT

2.2 Providing equipment andmaintenance services to

Israeli military checkpointsin the West Bank

A complicated system o movement-re-

stricting mechanisms is imposed by Is-

rael on Palestinian residents o the West

Bank and the Gaza Strip. A matrix o

checkpoints, roadblocks and the Sepa-

ration Wall, inicts severe limitations on

movement both internally and between

the West Bank, the Gaza

Strip and Israel. Check-

points are military or

police acilities (depend-

ing on location) in which

inspection and surveil-lance o the Palestinian

population take place,

through extensive body

and baggage searches.

The checkpoints impede

access to work, to private

property and land, to

education and to medi-cal treatment. Even i the

wall and checkpoints

serve legitimate security

interests, the wall is ille-

gally located within the

West Bank, de acto annexing territory to

Israel.37

G4S Israel supplied luggage scanning

equipment and ull body scanners to sev-

eral checkpoints in the West Bank, includ-

ing the Qalandia checkpoint, the Beth-

lehem checkpoint and the Irtah (Sha’ar

Eraim) checkpoint. Additionally, the

company provided ull body scanners to

the Erez checkpoint in Gaza.

A map o the Qalandia and Bethlehem checkpoints. G4S provided scanning equipment or these check-points which are well inside occupied territory and are part o the Separation Wall complex. Source:

Betzelem and Who Profts

http://bit.ly/8XinJT

http://bit.ly/8XinJT



38 Ibid. 39 http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/

barcelona-session


Who Prots eld research is supported by

G4S statement in a letter to the Business

& Human Rights Resource Centre, which

conrms that the company sells security

equipment, including X-ray machines and

body scanners, “with associated main-

tenance services”, to the Israeli police,

prison service and Ministry o Deense.

All o these West Bank checkpoints are

built as part o the Separation Wall,

whose route was declared illegal by the

International Court o Justice, in its Advi-sory Opinion o 9 July 2004.38

The Qalandia and Bethlehem checkpoints

are part o the Israeli system o control

that sustains its annexation o East Je-

rusalem, since they prevent Palestinian

residents o the West Bank rom entering

vast areas o occupied land around the

city o Jerusalem and rom entering occu-

pied East Jerusalem itsel. The Erez check-

point serves as part o the Israeli closure

policy over the Gaza Strip. The Barcelona

session o the Russell Tribunal on Pales-

tine dened the closure o the borders o

the Gaza Strip as an act that may be char-acterized as Apartheid; the annexation

o East Jerusalem was ound to be one o

the grave breaches o international law

against the Palestinian people.39

A luggage scanning machine by Rapiscanwhich was installed by G4S at the Qalandiacheckpoint. Photo: Who Profts.

http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/barcelona-session







Lines o Palestinian workers waiting to go through the Bethlehem checkpoint at dawn.Photo: delayed gratifcation

Palestinians Workersand the Checkpoints

Palestinians who have work permits

or working in East Jerusalem and in-

side Israel have to go through these

checkpoints to get to work every day.

Approximately 23,000 people cross

these checkpoints along the Separa-

tion Wall on a daily basis.

Long lines o workers, who are araido not getting to work on time be-

cause o delays at the checkpoints,

orm rom as early as 3 o’clock in the

morning. Many o these workers areday-laborers who will not be able to

nd employment i they do not get to

the “Israeli” side beore 6 am, others

are at risk o losing their work places i

they are late.40 G4S Israel has supplied

luggage scanning equipment and

ull-body scanners or checkpoints

along the Separation Wall.

40 For a video documentation o the thousands

that are waiting to cross the Bethlehem checkpoint

every morning see: http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=JDpSQNJ7Ock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDpSQNJ7Ock







41 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/09/israel

42 http://politiken.dk/erhverv/ECE54474/alck-orlader-

vestbredden/ (in Danish), http://bit.ly/hm6nbw(in

Hebrew).

43 See DanWatch report at http://bit.ly/ex2w9C

2.3 Providing security services tobusinesses in settlements

In 2002, it was revealed that Group 4

Falck’s subsidiary Hashmira had at least

100 armed guards in the settlement o

Kedumim. Shortly ater, Group 4 Falck an-

nounced they had decided to pull out o

the settlements. Lars Nørby Johansen, the

company’s CEO at the time, stated that

the company would withdraw rom oper-

ating in the West Bank:”In some situations

there are other criteria that we must con-

sider. And to avoid any doubt that Group

4 Falck respect international conventions

and human rights, we have decided to

leave the West Bank.”41

All o the company’s ac-

tivities regarding guard-

ing the settlements were

then transerred to a new-

ly-established company

called Shalhevet. Shalhe-

vet was then owned by

the minority shareholder

o G4S Israel, Yig’al Sher-

miester, the grandson o

the ounder o Hashmi-

ra, who was the CEO o

Hashmira at the time.42

However, recent company publicationsand ndings o the group “DanWatch” a-

rm that G4S still ofers its security servic-

es to businesses in the illegal settlements

in the West Bank and in the settlement

neighborhoods o East Jerusalem. These

include providing security equipment

and personnel to shops and supermar-

kets in settlements, including in the set-

tlements o Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim,

Har Adar and the settlement neighbor-

hoods o East Jerusalem.43 In addition,

In July 2010, G4S Israel announced its

take-over o Aminut Moked Artzi, one o

Systems o G4S installed in a supermarket in the West Bank settlement o Modi’in Illit. Photo: DanWatch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/09/israel

http://politiken.dk/erhverv/ECE54474/falck-forlader-vestbredden/


http://bit.ly/hm6nbw

http://bit.ly/ex2w9C

http://bit.ly/ex2w9C




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/09/israel




44 Announced by G4S Israel on the company website:http://bit.ly/dLahZV and conrmed in a phone conver-sation with Who Prots researcher on January 19, 2011

(notes rom conversation on le).

45 See section 4 below. Also available online at: http://bit.ly/Dqs0l

the oldest private security companies in

Israel. Aminut, which provided security

services to businesses in the Barkan in-

dustrial zone, was sold to Hashmira, G4S’ssubsidiary, or 9.4 million NIS and G4S

stated that it would continue the Aminut

business operations.44

In a letter recently sent by the company

to the Business & Human Rights Resource

Centre, G4S conrmed its involvement in

the Israeli occupation and violations o

international law. G4S conrmed that it

had withdrawn rom contracts providingsecurity ocers to residential settlements

in the West Bank in 2002. “However, we

continue to serve major commercial cus-

tomers, or instance, supermarket chains,

whose operations include the West

Bank”.45

http://bit.ly/dLahZV

http://bit.ly/fDqs0l




http://bit.ly/dLahZV




46 It is important to note that contrary to the role o policein most modern democracies, in the oPt the police orcedoes not monopolize the use o orce against the civilianpopulation and is not ultimately responsible or home-land security. These policing unctions are shared by theIsraeli army, security service (Shin Beit or “Shabak”) and,

recently, also by PSCs. In this complex matrix, the role o

the police otentimes becomes one o a mediator betweenthese authorities and between them and the Israeli judicialsystem (state attorney and courts) which are supposed toprosecute ofenders.

47 For the ull Yesh Din data-sheet see http://bit.ly/guTKEt.

2.4 Providing security systemsfor the Israeli police

headquarters in the West Bank

G4S Israel provided security equipment

or the Israeli police headquarters in the

West Bank, which is located in the E-1

area, near the settlement o Ma’ale Ad-

umim. This is the headquarters o the

Judea and Samaria Police Department

(“Machoz Shai”). The Judea and SamariaPolice Department was established in

1994 as a result o the Oslo Accords and

the Massacre in the Cave o Machpela in

Hebron (the Tomb o the Patriarchs), an

incident in which a settler opened re on

Moslem worshipers, killing 29 people and

wounding 125 others. The establishment

o the police department was explained

by Israeli ocials as an attempt to main-

tain the rule o law in the territories and

it was assigned the role o investigat-

ing crimes committed by Israeli citizens,

mainly settlers, in the West Bank.46 The

establishment o a “Jewish” police depart-

ment normalizes the current status quoo a large settler population in the West

Bank and institutionalizes the separation

between the two legal systems – one or

Israelis and one or Palestinians, who re-

side in the same territory. Moreover, ac-

cumulated data on the operation o theJudea and Samaria Police Department

raise concerns regarding its ability to per-

orm impartial and thorough investiga-

tions. According to a recent report by the

Israeli human rights organization “Yesh

Din”, the vast majority o investigations

conducted by this police department are

closed on grounds that suggest that the

investigation has ailed. The percentage o

investigations that do not reach a conclu-

sion is particularly high when these relate

to ofenses o violence against Palestin-

ians and damage to their property. 78%

o incidents o violence and 93% o cases

o damage to property have been closedon grounds that suggest that those inves-

tigations were never completed.47

The E-1 construction project was aimed

at ensuring the contiguity o Israeli set-

tlements, between the settlement neigh-

borhoods o East Jerusalem and Ma’ale

Adumim, cutting of the south o the

West Bank (Bethlehem and Hebron) rom

the central and northern areas (Ramallah,

http://bit.ly/guTKEt

http://bit.ly/guTKEt




48 http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/?CategoryID=180

49

“Settlers to get East Jerusalem Police Building in Swap”,

Meron Rapoport, Ha’aretz, 26 April 2006. Available online athttp://bit.ly/huqMBS

Nablus and Jenin) to Palestinian move-

ment and development. Due to U.S. ob-

jections, the construction o housing pro-

jects in the E-1 area was suspended, but

a new building or the headquarters o

the West Bank division o the Israeli police

was built there. Currently, this is the only

Israeli building in this area.

48

The new police station is part o a “land-

laundering scheme” whereby the reed-

up land in Ras-al-Amud will be transerred

to its original Jewish owners, rom 60

years ago, represented by the Committee

o Bukharan Jews in Israel. The area in Ras-

al-Amud will be used to build a Jewish

enclave in the heart

o what is now a Pal-

estinian East Jerusa-

lem neighborhood

on the slopes o the

Mount o Olives. In acontract signed be-

tween the Commit-

tee and the Police in

July 2005, the Com-

mittee guaranteed

allocation o land or

the new police head-

quarters and under-

took nancing the

planning and devel-

opment eforts or

the police station in

the E1 zone. This agreement enabled the

police to obtain the necessary unding,

without receiving government unds.

49

The E-1 area next to the settlement o Ma’ale Adumim. The E-1 construction project was aimed at ensuring thecontiguity o Israeli settlements, between the settlement neighborhoods o East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim,cutting of the south o the West Bank (Bethlehem and Hebron) rom the central and northern areas (Ramallah,Nablus and Jenin) to Palestinian movement and development. Source: Betzelem and Who Profts

http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/?CategoryID=180



http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/?CategoryID=180




50 http://bit.ly/g0MOAY

51

http://www.g4s.com/en/What%20we%20do/Sectors/

Government/

52

http://bit.ly/g1JH9x

G4S is the largest security-services provid-

er in the world, with operations in more

than 120 countries across six continents.

The company employs over 625,000 em-

ployees, making it the largest employer

on the London Stock Exchange and the

second largest private employer in the

world.50 The company provides a widerange o services to both private and

public sectors, including secure acilities

management, security consultancy, event

security, secure transport services and se-

curity systems.

According to the company’s website,

company services ofered to governments

include homeland security and border

control, guarding and security services or

public buildings and events, maintenance

and security o energy acilities, gas and

oil elds and even direct support o mili-

tary operations o governments abroad. It

also operates custody acilities (includingprisons) and electronic security systems.

In addition, it provides cash management

and logistics services or the main British

and European Banks. In addition, G4S pro-

vides guarding services at various airports

including Heathrow Airport, Oslo Airport,

Schiphol Airport and OR Tambo Airport,

as well as at various acilities belonging to

the US, UK, Canadian and European gov-

ernments. 51

3.1 G4S operations in theNetherlands

G4S is the largest private security rm in

the Netherlands.52 On its website the com-

pany states that the company provides

services in the ollowing areas:

Border control, security o oreign

embassies and “deense support” (pri-

vate military).

Guarding services to universities,

schools, including but not limited to

securing test orms and results.

”Maintaining order in the street”. As

explained below, the company has an

agreement, or instance, with Amster-dam police and municipality.

Guarding and security services to

ministries. The website only explicitly

mentions providing such services to the

Ministry o Finance, but this is meant to

3. International Activity

http://bit.ly/g0MOAY

http://www.g4s.com/en/What%20we%20do/Sectors/Government/






http://bit.ly/g0MOAY




be an example and, thus, there may be

more.

Securing hospitals, airports andseaports.

Providing security services or cul-

tural events and conerences.

According to the company’s own web-

site, G4S provides security services or

Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and to

the Dutch Ministry o Finance. Both o

these are given as examples o the scope

o the company’s operation in Holland.53

In addition, G4S is one o the main part-

ners o The Amsterdam Collective Secu-

rity Foundation (De Stichting Collectieve

Beveiliging Amsterdam), a joint ventureo the local police and the industry. ‘In-

dustry’, here, should be understood as

a two-old party: one is G4S, who has a

contract with the Amsterdam police,

taking over some o the latter’s security

unctions. The other industry-related

party is the actual business clients, who

need the security provided jointly by the

police and the private security rms.

53 http://www.g4s.nl/nl-nl/oplossingen/sector/Pub-

lieke%20sector/

http://www.g4s.nl/nl-nl/oplossingen/sector/Publieke%20sector/







4.1 Company statements

Following publications in the press con-

cerning the involvement o the company

in the occupation, as detailed above, the

company was invited by the Business &

Human Rights Resource Centre to issue a

response.

The ollowing is the statement released by

the company:

4. Examining Company Responses

21 Dec 2010

G4S and its predecessor company, Group4 Falck, have had operations in Israel or

many years through our subsidiary G4SHashmira. We provide a mixture o secu-rity ocers and security technology, in-cluding access control systems, X-ray ma-chines and body scanners, to commercialand governmental clients.

In 2002 we announced that we were with-drawing rom several contracts providingsecurity ocers to residential settlements

in the West Bank. Since then we have notperormed such work, nor bid or any such contracts. However, we continue toserve major commercial customers, orinstance supermarket chains, whose op-erations include the West Bank. Underthese contracts we will provide security ocers to protect the premises o these

commercial clients who serve the gen-eral public. Te number o such oc-ers deployed in the West Bank is gener-ally less than 20 and currently stands ateight. Other G4S sta may also periodi-cally travel through the West Bank in thecourse o their work.

Regarding the Israeli government, wedo not carry out police or military-stylepatrols anywhere in the West Bank. Wemay rom time to time provide ocersto protect police acilities, but they donot perorm any kind o law enorce-ment or public security role. We havealso provided security equipment, in-cluding X-ray machines and body scan-ners, with associated maintenance ser-

vices, to the Israeli police, prison serviceand Ministry o Deence. We do notcontrol, nor are we necessarily aware,where this equipment is deployed as itmay be moved around the country.

As is clear rom this response, the com-

pany admits that it provides security ser-

vices in settlements. However, this state-

ment is misleading, since the company

ails to mention that their activities in the

settlements do not “serve the general

public” as they state, but only the Jew-

ish public, since the entrance o Palestin-

ians into the settlements is severely re-

stricted.54 The settlements are, thereore,

54 This restriction is according to the military law which ap-

plies in the West Bank. See IDF (1996). Decree Concerning

the Security Order (no. 873), 1970, Declaration Concerning

the Closing-Of o an Area (Israeli Settlements).




of-limits or almost all Palestinians, or all

intents and purposes. Consequently, Pal-

estinians cannot use the services these

businesses ofer in settlements. By stat-

ing that businesses in settlements “serve

the general public”, the company ignores

the regime o separation and segregation

that is applied in West Bank settlements,

and the ways in which businesses that

operate there implicitly take part in this

segregation.

Moreover, the statement o the compa-

ny concerning the X-ray machines and

body scanners that are provided by the

company seems to be less than accurate,

since in the companies’ own publications,

the company specically advertizes that

its X-ray machines and body scanners

are installed in the Israeli military check-

points in the West Bank. For instance,

the image below is a screenshot o the

company website, as captured by our re-

A screenshot o G4S Israel website, No-vember 2008. The text on the let handside reads: “Personal luggage-scanningmachines manuactured by Rapiscan USAwere installed in the Seam-Zone crossings[checkpoints which are along the route o the Separation Wall], including: the Qalan-dia Crossing, the Bethlehem Crossing, theSha’ar Eraim crossing and more”. Source: www.hashmira.com/index_heb.asp




55 Source: http://www.hashmira.com/index_heb.asp, ac-

cessed November 18, 2008.

searchers in 2008.55 Under the title ‘News’,

the rubric on the bottom let-hand side

states: “Personal luggage-scanning ma-

chines manuactured by Rapiscan USA

were installed in the Seam-Zone cross-

ings [checkpoints which are along the

route o the Separation Wall], including:

the Qalandia Crossing, the Bethlehem

Crossing, the Sha’ar Eraim crossing and

more”.

Similarly, the website included inorma-

tion about ull-body scanners provided

by the company to the Erez Checkpoint.

In the screenshot o the company web-

site rom 2008 presented below, the

company states: “Systems or check-

ing persons manuactured by Saeview

USA, rst o their kind, were installed at

the Erez Checkpoint. The systems are

in operational use by the army and en-

able perorming ull scans o the human

body”.

This inormation was originally only pub-

lished in Hebrew. It is interesting to note

that this inormation has since been re-

moved rom the website o the company.

A screenshot o G4S Israel website, November 2008. The text on the lethand side reads: “Systems or checking persons manuactured by SaeviewUSA, rst o their kind, were installed at the Erez Checkpoint. The systemsare in operational use by the army and enable perorming ull scans o thehuman body”. Source: www.hashmira.com/index_heb.asp

http://www.hashmira.com/index_heb.asp

http://www.hashmira.com/index_heb.asp




4.2 The legal opinion of

Prof. Hjalte Rasmussen

Facing increasing criticism o activity by its

Israeli subsidiary, G4S also commissioned

an expert legal opinion, on January 27,

2011, rom Hjalte Rasmussen, proessor o

international law at Copenhagen Univer-

sity, concerning its occupation-related in-

volvement.56 According to Proessor Ras-

mussen, the activities o the company in

the West Bank and in relation to the Israeli

occupation do not contradict internation-

al law.

In this report we do not examine the le-

gal considerations and interpretation o international law that led Pro. Rasmus-

sen to reach this conclusion. However, on

reading this opinion, it becomes obvious

that there are some actual inaccuracies

behind Pro. Rasmussen’s analysis.

For instance, Pro. Rasmussen writes that

“it is worth noting that G4S has not only Is-

raeli clients, but also Palestinian, and that

the concern [G4S] does not discriminate

between them. In other words, all citizens

in the occupied territories enjoy G4S’s ser-

vices […] G4S’s services to these private

companies and citizens in the occupied

territories counteract criminal activity,

which serves both Israeli and Palestiniancitizens.”57

This statement is puzzling, since, as men-

tioned above, on all but rare occasions,

Palestinians rom the West Bank cannot

enter the settlements and denitely can-

not use the private companies that oper-

ate there. Even the entrance o Palestin-

ians rom inside Israel is highly restricted.

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that “all citizens

in the occupied territories enjoy G4S’s ser-

vices”, since the security services provided

by G4S to businesses in settlements serve

only the Jewish residents o the occupied

territory.

In addition, the legal opinion states that

“G4S has also not only Israeli but Palestin-

ian customers, and the group does not

discriminate among its customers.”58 This

may be true in the activity o the company

in Israel, but not in its activity in the West

Bank settlements.

When discussing the act that G4S pro-

vided security systems or the headquar-

ters o the Judea and Samaria Police De-

partment, Pro. Rasmussen claims that

“it must be emphasized that G4S has no

56 The ull legal opinion can be ound at http://bit.ly/emLUJ (in Danish).

57 Ibid, p. 40. 58 Ibid, p. 41.

http://bit.ly/emLUfJ







59

Ibid, p. 42.60

Ibid.

inuence as to where its services are de-

livered; this is entirely in the hands o the

Israeli authorities. Neither does G4S have

any knowledge o how the services are

used.”59

While it may be true that G4S has no in-

uence as to where its services are deliv-

ered, it is still interesting to note that the

company is well aware o where its sys-tems are installed. In particular, the com-

pany advertized in its own brochure that

its systems were installed in the head-

quarters o the Judea and Samaria Police

Department, as the scanned image rom

this brochure shows. Under the section

entitled ‘Israeli Police’ this page speci-

es that their company’s systems were

installed in several police stations inside

Israel; the headquarters o the Judea and

Samaria Police Department is listed at

the bottom o the page, under the title

“Additional Projects in this Field”.

Pro. Rasmussen also discusses the actthat G4S provided security systems to

the Oer prison or Palestinian prisoners

in the occupied territory. Pro. Rasmus-

sen states that in this prison “The prison-

ers are thereore regular prisoners, in the

sense that they are sentenced by inde-

pendent, neutral and irremovable courts,

or crimes, just like all other prisoners

imprisoned on Israeli ground. They are

either sentenced in the ordinary Israeli

court system, or they are assigned to cus-

tody.”60

As explicated at length in section 2.1.1

above, this statement is inaccurate. Pris-

oners and detainees in the Oer prisonare not sentenced in the general Israeli

court system, but are sentenced in a mili-

tary court system which is intended only

or West Bank Palestinians.

A page rom a brochure o the Technologies Divi-sion o G4S Israel. This page species police sta-tions or which G4S provided security systems.Under the title “Additional Projects in this Field”,the second line rom the bottom reads: The head-quarters o the Judea and Samaria Police Depart-ment Ma’ale Adumim. Source: G4S Israel, Technolo-

gies Division brochure, 2009, p. 12.



61 Ibid, p. 44.


Notably, in this legal opinion there is no

discussion o the act that there are other

prisons or Palestinian political prisoners,

like Megiddo, Damon and Ktziot, that G4S

provided systems or and that are inside

Israel. As discussed in greater detail in

section 2.1.2 above, the prisoners there

were also sentenced in military courts

that deal only with Palestinians and not in

the general Israeli court system. Similarly,

there is no mention o the act that G4Salso provided security systems or the Kis-

hon and Jerusalem interrogation and de-

tention acilities, or o the abundance o

testimonies o incidents o torture which

take place in these acilities, as described

in section 2.1.3.

Finally, the legal opinion reers to the

checkpoints that G4S provided equip-

ment or as “border crossings”.61 As expli-

cated at length in section 2.2 above, these

checkpoints are part o the Separation

Wall and some o them, particularly the

Qalandia and Bethlehem checkpoints,

are well inside the occupied territory. Ad-

ditionally, it is not clear how these cross-ings may be regarded as “border cross-

ings”, since Israeli rule is applied on both

sides o these checkpoints and, thereore,

they are not on any border.

An article rom “On the Sae Side” (“AlBatu’ach”), the G4S Israel newspaper,May 2008. The article is entitled “SecurePrison” and states that G4S technologieswon the tenders or providing technolo-gies or the Megiddo Prison, Ktziot Prisonand “the Oer Prison next to Ramallah”.

The article emphasizes that these acili-ties hold thousands o “security prison-ers”. The article also species that in theseprisons the company installed comput-erized control and monitoring systems,entrance and visitation control systems,

control rooms with touch screens, inter-nal and external CCTV monitoring andrecording systems and optic bre com-munication lines. The company also installedre and smoke detection systems and metal

detector gates in these prisons. Source: “On

the Sae Side” the Hashmira Group newspaper,

May 2008, vol. 13 p. 14.




62 DanWatch website at http://danwatch.dk . Forexample, see http://bit.ly/g1S4Tq

63

“Outcry in Denmark over rm’s involvement in occu-

pation”, Adri Nieuwho, Electronic Intiada, 15 Decem-ber 2010. Available online at: http://electronicintiada.net/v2/article11678.shtml

4.3 Company Response fromMarch 11, 2011

In November o 2010, DanWatch

launched a public campaign in Denmark

which exposed the involvement o G4S

in the Israeli occupation.62 This campaign

received signicant press coverage and

prompted calls to exclude G4S rom re-

ceiving public contracts in Denmark.63

As a result o mounting criticism o com-

pany activities, in March 2011 G4S pub-

lished the ollowing statement:

Statement

London and Copenhagen, March 11, 2011.

Following recent criticism in the Danish press and NGO’s we have been conducting

a review o our operations in the West Bank.

Te issue o providing services in the West Bank is a complex one. On the one hand

measures are said to restrict the ree movement o Palestinians and thereore are con-

sidered to be a breach o their human rights and on the other, lives have been saved

as the trend o suicide bombings has been curtailed.

Te services rom which the company withdrew in 2002 cannot be compared to those

provided today. In 2002 Group 4 Falck withdrew rom several contracts providing

armed security ocers to residential settlements in the West Bank. Since then we

have not perormed such work, nor bid or any such contracts.

In order to help us understand all o the issues and to come to a satisactory conclu-

sion regarding today’s operations in the area, we have taken a number o steps:

http://danwatch.dk/

http://bit.ly/g1S4Tq

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11678.shtml




http://bit.ly/g1S4Tq

http://danwatch.dk/




G4S engaged Proessor Hjalte Rasmussen, rom the University o Copenha-

gen, who is a well known and leading authority in international law, to review our

business on the West Bank and provide a legal opinion. Afer visiting the region,

Proessor Rasmussen concluded that G4S does not violate any national or interna-

tional law.

In addition to the legal opinion, we have been conducting a review o our busi-

ness in the region against our own Business Ethics Policy and have sought input

rom a number o sources including customers and a number o socially responsi-

ble investment groups such as GES Investment Services.

Afer a thorough review, we have concluded that a number o our contracts with

private enterprises in the area or traditional security and alarm monitoring ser-

vices are not discriminatory or controversial and in act help to provide saety and

security or the general public no matter what their background.

However, we have also concluded that to ensure that our business practices remain

in line with our own Business Ethics Policy, we will aim to exit a number o con-tracts which involve the servicing o security equipment at the barrier checkpoints,

prisons and police stations in the West Bank.

We will aim to complete this exit as soon as possible, but also recognise that we have

contractual obligations to our customers which we must take into consideration.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has taken the time to

engage with us on this issue and or their support in helping us to reach a satisac-

tory decision.

This statement attests to the ability o

civil society to put pressure on com-

mercial companies whose activities vio-

late human rights and international law.

However, it is important to note that in

this statement G4S does not declare that



they will stop all o their occupation-re-

lated activities. Most importantly, pro-

vided that G4S does withdraw rom itscontracts to provide security equipment

to Israeli acilities in the West Bank, the

company will still continue providing

their equipment to Israeli prisons which

hold Palestinian political prisoners inside

Israel (see sections 2.1.2-2.1.4 above).

Similarly, the company also did not statethat it will stop providing security servic-

es and personnel to businesses in West

Bank Israeli settlements (see section 2.3).

WhoProfits report on G4S

Documents

Transcript of WhoProfits report on G4S