the Gaza Strip for the sake of security, for instance, cannot be considered a proportional measure, as this curtails the rights of millions of Palestinians absent any evidence of a threat posed to Israel. As such, the legal principle of proportionality appears to have been substituted for a blanket policy of “guilty until proven innocent”. Israel has regularly portrayed itself as the victim and has justified its acts, including its implementation of so-called security measures or restrictions, as acts of self-defense. However, the right to self-defense cannot be invoked when one’s own acts constitute the first phase of an attack, and in this case, by mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an attack has already happened.50 As the former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, Professor John Dugard, has stated, “[I]t is an occupied territory, and if Israel uses force against the occupied territory, it is not acting in selfdefense. It is acting as an occupying power.”51 These restrictions are also a collective punishment applied against the Palestinian population as a whole, a scenario forbidden under IHL in all circumstances.52 The main element of this principle is that individuals or groups must not be punished for acts committed by others, such as family members or members of their community. As seen in the examples above and throughout this paper, however, collective punishment of Palestinians by Israel is common practice. Family members of those who have committed or are accused of committing attacks against Israel are often denied permits to enter Israel; to visit their family members in prison, or even prevented from travelling abroad. In other cases, Palestinians previously issued with permits have had these permits revoked on account of a relative being involved in an action considered a threat by Israel. Punishing a whole community is also commonplace, as in the case of the West Bank city of Tulkarem, which, at the time of writing, remains completely closed for the third day in succession.53 50 James Marc Leas, “Deconstructing Israel's "Self-Defense" Claim and Its Campaign Against the ICC”, New Analysis, Truthout, 14 December 2015. Available at: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34030deconstructing-israel-s-self-defense-claim-and-its-campaign-against-the-icc; Noura Erakat, “No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Jadaliyya, 11 July 2014. Available at: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8799/no-israel-doesnot-have-the-right-to-self-defense-. 51 John Dugard, “Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies?”, Democracy Now, 6 August 2014. Available at: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/6/can_israel_claim_self_ defense_against 52 Article 4(2)(b) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/475?OpenDocument; see also, ICRC, International Humanitarian Law, rule 103. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule103#Fn_12_2 53 Press TV, “Israeli forces close Palestinian city for third day”, 13 December 2015. Available at: http:// www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/12/13/441544/Israel-Tulkarem-Shaul-Nir-West-Bank 21