life, this paper is only able to illustrate a few examples of the wider impact of the permit regime and how it relates to the overall strategy of Israel of forced population transfer. It is also important to note that this paper adopts a broad approach as to what constitutes a “permit”. Therefore, not only are officially labeled permits discussed in this paper, but so too are Israeli regulations and practices which – in their imposition of severe restrictions – effectively act as permits. Israel’s Security Justification of the Permit Regime Israel, through the installment of the permit regime, is restricting different human rights of Palestinians on a daily basis. Israel often justifies such policies on security grounds. Yet, objective examination of the facts illustrates the highly questionable rationale behind this security “justification”.23 Many Israeli politicians and other public figures have openly stated that the restrictions on Palestinians’ rights are not rooted in security considerations. For example, Justice Asher Grunis opined in a 2012 Israeli Supreme Court judgment that “human rights are not a prescription for national suicide”.24 Such statements are based on the notion that ensuring respect for the rights of Palestinians would present a threat to a Jewish-majority in Israel. To this end, in 2012, Knesset member, Ze’ev Elkin, claimed that “human rights cannot jeopardize the State”.25 Legal Framework Israel is signatory to numerous international human rights treaties and, therefore, International Human Rights Law (IHRL) applies within its territory. In addition, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that IHRL and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are not mutually exclusive and can be concurrently applicable within the same territory. IHL is indisputably applicable in situations of occupation, and the ICJ affirmed that international human rights instruments are also applicable “in respect of acts done by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory, particularly in occupied territories.” Israeli policies in the oPt must, therefore,adhere fully to international human rights standards. 23 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, “The Israeli Policy of Closure: Legal, Political, and Humanitarian Evaluation”, 20 December 1996, chapter 2,available at: www.pchrgaza.org/files/S&r/English/study6/ Chapter%20Two.html 24 Ben White, “How Israel uses its ‘security needs’ to justify discrimination”, The National, 21 November 2015, available at: www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/how-israel-uses-its-security-needs-tojustify-discrimination 25 Arutz Sheva, “Elkin: High Court Used Common Sense”, 1 December 2012, available at: www. israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/229295#.VmVpBLiGRBd 14