23 mar 2018
by Ben White
It is routinely hailed as Israel's last line of defence against ultra-nationalist legislation. But does the country's Supreme Court deserve its reputation as an upholder of liberal values?
Recent cases have illustrated how the court, rather than undermining the systematic rights abuses experienced by Palestinians, in fact oils the machine of occupation.
Earlier this month, the Knesset passed a law granting the interior minister the power to revoke the permanent residency status of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem if they are "disloyal" to the state of Israel. Under the law, "the state can deport anyone whose residency status is withdrawn".
The law was passed following a Supreme Court ruling last year that, on the face of it, represented a victory for four Palestinians who had had their residency rescinded for their political activities.
Partners in oppression
While the court overturned that revocation, it also "froze the ruling for half a year to give the Knesset a chance to pass legislation that would allow the rescinding of their residency status".
In other words, the state and the Supreme Court are effectively partners in a strikingly oppressive law that flies in the face of international obligations and Palestinians’ human rights.
Or take another example: that of the Israeli practice of withholding the bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces while conducting attacks or alleged attacks, preventing families from burying their loved ones.
The record shows that, far from representing a refuge for Palestinians or even Jewish Israeli human rights advocates, the Supreme Court facilitates, rather than rolls back, abuses
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to a request by the state to hold a further hearing on the policy, "delaying the scheduled repatriation of the bodies to their families".
The court had earlier ruled that "the state has no authority to hold the bodies of Palestinians as bargaining chips, and that it must transfer bodies to the families of the deceased for burial", as summarised by legal rights centre Adalah.
Yet some weeks later, the same court accepted the Israeli state's request to hold an additional hearing to challenge this ruling, which will take place in June – and also granted the state’s request to delay the return of the bodies until a final decision is reached.
Adalah, along with the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center and the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, were understandably furious, noting in a statement: "The Supreme Court rendered a decision that makes Israel’s ongoing violation of international humanitarian law possible."
‘License to torture’
The examples abound: last December, Israel's Supreme Court justices rejected a petition to save a Palestinian primary school in the occupied West Bank threatened with demolition; the school, the court said, was an illegitimate attempt "to create facts on the ground".
That same month, an even more disturbing decision was issued, when the Supreme Court rejected a petition brought on behalf of a Palestinian prisoner who had been tortured during interrogation – as, unusually, even the state itself had acknowledged.
In a ruling that saw the court take "the state's side on all of the key issues before it", the Supreme Court effectively redefined torture so as to permit it. "The definition of certain interrogation methods as 'torture' is dependent on concrete circumstances," claimed Judge Uri Shoham, "even when these are methods recognised explicitly in international law as 'torture.'"
In response, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said: "This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, gravely undermining the universal prohibition of torture … The Supreme Court has essentially provided them [Shin Bet agents] with a judicially sanctioned 'license to torture.'"
Setting the bar low
Time and time again, the Israeli Supreme Court gives its seal of approval to legislation and state practices that violate international law and human rights conventions. The chilling, anti-democratic anti-boycott law of 2011? Upheld. Confiscation of Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem? Upheld.
It is, in fact, a rare occasion where the court rules against the state: data presented in May 2017 showed that the Supreme Court rejected 87 percent of the more than 9,000 petitions filed against government decisions between 1995 and 2016.
Myths abound, however. In a typical example, an October 2017 AP report described the court as "widely seen as a guardian of the country's founding democratic principles", under "fierce pressure from political hard-liners" opposed to “what they see as the court's overreach and liberal slant".
It is true that Israel's hard-right political factions have long been unhappy with the Supreme Court. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked recently oversaw the appointment of two new justices, in a move widely reported as giving the court a “more conservative” make-up.
But to assess the court's record based on the perceptions of pro-settler ultra-nationalists is to set the bar a little low, to say the least. Moreover, the "liberals" of the judiciary and their right-wing foes have more in common than either would care to admit.
Occasional victories
Last week, a Knesset committee advanced the final version of a "Jewish nation state" bill that, according to Haaretz, is intended to lay the groundwork for the Supreme Court "to give preference to Israel’s Jewish character over its democratic values should the two conflict in the courts".
Except that is something the Supreme Court already can do, and has done, interpreting a key clause in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in such a way as to give "significant weight to the nature of Israel as a Jewish state and its goals, at the expense of … fundamental rights".
Thus, the record shows that, far from representing a refuge for Palestinians or even Jewish Israeli human rights advocates, the Supreme Court facilitates, rather than rolls back, abuses. Occasional victories are exactly that; the court is a core part of, and reinforces, the discriminatory status quo.
- Ben White is the author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide and Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, the Electronic Intifada, the Guardian's Comment is Free and more.
It is routinely hailed as Israel's last line of defence against ultra-nationalist legislation. But does the country's Supreme Court deserve its reputation as an upholder of liberal values?
Recent cases have illustrated how the court, rather than undermining the systematic rights abuses experienced by Palestinians, in fact oils the machine of occupation.
Earlier this month, the Knesset passed a law granting the interior minister the power to revoke the permanent residency status of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem if they are "disloyal" to the state of Israel. Under the law, "the state can deport anyone whose residency status is withdrawn".
The law was passed following a Supreme Court ruling last year that, on the face of it, represented a victory for four Palestinians who had had their residency rescinded for their political activities.
Partners in oppression
While the court overturned that revocation, it also "froze the ruling for half a year to give the Knesset a chance to pass legislation that would allow the rescinding of their residency status".
In other words, the state and the Supreme Court are effectively partners in a strikingly oppressive law that flies in the face of international obligations and Palestinians’ human rights.
Or take another example: that of the Israeli practice of withholding the bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces while conducting attacks or alleged attacks, preventing families from burying their loved ones.
The record shows that, far from representing a refuge for Palestinians or even Jewish Israeli human rights advocates, the Supreme Court facilitates, rather than rolls back, abuses
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to a request by the state to hold a further hearing on the policy, "delaying the scheduled repatriation of the bodies to their families".
The court had earlier ruled that "the state has no authority to hold the bodies of Palestinians as bargaining chips, and that it must transfer bodies to the families of the deceased for burial", as summarised by legal rights centre Adalah.
Yet some weeks later, the same court accepted the Israeli state's request to hold an additional hearing to challenge this ruling, which will take place in June – and also granted the state’s request to delay the return of the bodies until a final decision is reached.
Adalah, along with the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center and the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, were understandably furious, noting in a statement: "The Supreme Court rendered a decision that makes Israel’s ongoing violation of international humanitarian law possible."
‘License to torture’
The examples abound: last December, Israel's Supreme Court justices rejected a petition to save a Palestinian primary school in the occupied West Bank threatened with demolition; the school, the court said, was an illegitimate attempt "to create facts on the ground".
That same month, an even more disturbing decision was issued, when the Supreme Court rejected a petition brought on behalf of a Palestinian prisoner who had been tortured during interrogation – as, unusually, even the state itself had acknowledged.
In a ruling that saw the court take "the state's side on all of the key issues before it", the Supreme Court effectively redefined torture so as to permit it. "The definition of certain interrogation methods as 'torture' is dependent on concrete circumstances," claimed Judge Uri Shoham, "even when these are methods recognised explicitly in international law as 'torture.'"
In response, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said: "This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, gravely undermining the universal prohibition of torture … The Supreme Court has essentially provided them [Shin Bet agents] with a judicially sanctioned 'license to torture.'"
Setting the bar low
Time and time again, the Israeli Supreme Court gives its seal of approval to legislation and state practices that violate international law and human rights conventions. The chilling, anti-democratic anti-boycott law of 2011? Upheld. Confiscation of Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem? Upheld.
It is, in fact, a rare occasion where the court rules against the state: data presented in May 2017 showed that the Supreme Court rejected 87 percent of the more than 9,000 petitions filed against government decisions between 1995 and 2016.
Myths abound, however. In a typical example, an October 2017 AP report described the court as "widely seen as a guardian of the country's founding democratic principles", under "fierce pressure from political hard-liners" opposed to “what they see as the court's overreach and liberal slant".
It is true that Israel's hard-right political factions have long been unhappy with the Supreme Court. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked recently oversaw the appointment of two new justices, in a move widely reported as giving the court a “more conservative” make-up.
But to assess the court's record based on the perceptions of pro-settler ultra-nationalists is to set the bar a little low, to say the least. Moreover, the "liberals" of the judiciary and their right-wing foes have more in common than either would care to admit.
Occasional victories
Last week, a Knesset committee advanced the final version of a "Jewish nation state" bill that, according to Haaretz, is intended to lay the groundwork for the Supreme Court "to give preference to Israel’s Jewish character over its democratic values should the two conflict in the courts".
Except that is something the Supreme Court already can do, and has done, interpreting a key clause in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in such a way as to give "significant weight to the nature of Israel as a Jewish state and its goals, at the expense of … fundamental rights".
Thus, the record shows that, far from representing a refuge for Palestinians or even Jewish Israeli human rights advocates, the Supreme Court facilitates, rather than rolls back, abuses. Occasional victories are exactly that; the court is a core part of, and reinforces, the discriminatory status quo.
- Ben White is the author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide and Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, the Electronic Intifada, the Guardian's Comment is Free and more.
21 mar 2018
David Moyal
Prosecution to seek months in prison for David Moyal, the first defendant to be convicted on trial for brutal lynch in the central bus station of an Eritrean man who was mistaken for terrorist.
David Moyal was convicted Wednesday for his part in a 2015 lynch of an innocent Eritrean man who—mistaken for a terrorist who had just carried out a deadly shooting attack—was shot and then brutally beaten in Be’er Sheva’s Central Bus Station by an enraged mob.
As part of a plea bargain, Moyal, a 31-year-old resident of the southern city and one of four people indicted in the case, was convicted of abusing a helpless person.
Moyal, who was indicted for causing intentional aggravated injury, was filmed slamming a bench on the the victim, Haftom Zarhum, while he was helplessly lying on the floor.
Prosecution to seek months in prison for David Moyal, the first defendant to be convicted on trial for brutal lynch in the central bus station of an Eritrean man who was mistaken for terrorist.
David Moyal was convicted Wednesday for his part in a 2015 lynch of an innocent Eritrean man who—mistaken for a terrorist who had just carried out a deadly shooting attack—was shot and then brutally beaten in Be’er Sheva’s Central Bus Station by an enraged mob.
As part of a plea bargain, Moyal, a 31-year-old resident of the southern city and one of four people indicted in the case, was convicted of abusing a helpless person.
Moyal, who was indicted for causing intentional aggravated injury, was filmed slamming a bench on the the victim, Haftom Zarhum, while he was helplessly lying on the floor.
Haftom Zarhum
The trial of the other three defendants—IDF soldier Yaakov Shimba, Evyatar Dimri, and Israel Prison Service Officer Ronen Cohen, is still ongoing.
As part of the plea bargain, the State Attorney's Office will petition for a few months in prison, on condition that Moyal is found fit to serve the punishment. They will also seek symbolic compensation for the deceased's family.
The incident took place at the height of what became known as Israel's 'wave of terror' when a terrorist from Hura in the Negev snatched an M-16 assault rifle from IDF soldier Sergeant Omri Levy, which he used to open fire, murdering the soldier and wounding nine others, several of them members of Israel's security forces.
At the end of 2017, the presiding judge in the case sought to clarify reports that claimed he had decided not to consider footage of the murder captured on camera.
The Be’er Sheva District Court judge said that he had not rejected the footage as evidence, but rather had opted to delay discussions on its content until both the prosecution and defense teams had fully formulated their cases, which had yet to be completed due to legal technicalities.
The trial of the other three defendants—IDF soldier Yaakov Shimba, Evyatar Dimri, and Israel Prison Service Officer Ronen Cohen, is still ongoing.
As part of the plea bargain, the State Attorney's Office will petition for a few months in prison, on condition that Moyal is found fit to serve the punishment. They will also seek symbolic compensation for the deceased's family.
The incident took place at the height of what became known as Israel's 'wave of terror' when a terrorist from Hura in the Negev snatched an M-16 assault rifle from IDF soldier Sergeant Omri Levy, which he used to open fire, murdering the soldier and wounding nine others, several of them members of Israel's security forces.
At the end of 2017, the presiding judge in the case sought to clarify reports that claimed he had decided not to consider footage of the murder captured on camera.
The Be’er Sheva District Court judge said that he had not rejected the footage as evidence, but rather had opted to delay discussions on its content until both the prosecution and defense teams had fully formulated their cases, which had yet to be completed due to legal technicalities.
The Israeli military court of Ofer on Wednesday sentenced the Palestinian female teenager Ahed al-Tamimi to eight months in jail, according to Haaretz Hebrew newspaper.
Ahed, who is 17 years old, was arrested on December 19, 2017 after a video showing her slapping two Israeli soldiers who tried to break into her family house in Nabi Saleh village in Ramallah went viral.
Ahed was also accused of incitement, in addition to other charges, as she called in a Facebook post for anti-settlement marches and asked the world to act against the US president Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Ahed, who is 17 years old, was arrested on December 19, 2017 after a video showing her slapping two Israeli soldiers who tried to break into her family house in Nabi Saleh village in Ramallah went viral.
Ahed was also accused of incitement, in addition to other charges, as she called in a Facebook post for anti-settlement marches and asked the world to act against the US president Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Israeli authorities are considering stripping 12 Palestinians of their permanent residency status in occupied East Jerusalem, in what would reportedly be the first use of recently adopted legislation.
According to Haaretz, Interior Minister Arye Dery is weighing up the move in light of a law which passed two weeks ago, and grants him the authority to strip any permanent resident of his residency rights, for ‘terrorism’ or ‘disloyalty’ to the State of Israel.
The 12 Palestinians in question include four Hamas-affiliated parliamentarians from the Palestinian Legislative Council, whose cases were the subject of a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a previous government decision to revoke their residency.
It was in response to that ruling that the Knesset subsequently adopted the new legislation, PNN further reports.
The other eight Palestinians who may have their residency revoked have all been convicted by Israeli courts of involvement in alleged terror attacks, Haaretz reported.
“Murdering Israelis and involvement in attacks against civilians is the gravest possible breach of faith between a resident and his country,” Dery said.
“The same goes for active, significant involvement in terrorist organizations. Residents and citizens who endanger the Israeli public and constitute a threat to its safety should know that their status is in danger, on top of the other penalties laid down by law. I will work with all my might and all the means at my disposal to fight terrorists and anyone who’s involved in or abets terror.”
Attorney Osama Saadi, who represents the four Hamas parliamentarians, said: “The amendment in question is unconstitutional, and even the attorney general opposed it. Moreover, the law states that in any case, it’s not possible to revoke the residency of East Jerusalem residents, who have a special status, and leave them without any residency.”
“We will petition the High Court on behalf of these four, who, as you’ll recall, have been waging a legal battle against the revocation of their residency since 2006 and won their petition a few months ago,” he added. “This amendment violates international law, and wholesale revocations, such as are happening today, show that this is a political law by a crazy government.”
According to Haaretz, Interior Minister Arye Dery is weighing up the move in light of a law which passed two weeks ago, and grants him the authority to strip any permanent resident of his residency rights, for ‘terrorism’ or ‘disloyalty’ to the State of Israel.
The 12 Palestinians in question include four Hamas-affiliated parliamentarians from the Palestinian Legislative Council, whose cases were the subject of a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a previous government decision to revoke their residency.
It was in response to that ruling that the Knesset subsequently adopted the new legislation, PNN further reports.
The other eight Palestinians who may have their residency revoked have all been convicted by Israeli courts of involvement in alleged terror attacks, Haaretz reported.
“Murdering Israelis and involvement in attacks against civilians is the gravest possible breach of faith between a resident and his country,” Dery said.
“The same goes for active, significant involvement in terrorist organizations. Residents and citizens who endanger the Israeli public and constitute a threat to its safety should know that their status is in danger, on top of the other penalties laid down by law. I will work with all my might and all the means at my disposal to fight terrorists and anyone who’s involved in or abets terror.”
Attorney Osama Saadi, who represents the four Hamas parliamentarians, said: “The amendment in question is unconstitutional, and even the attorney general opposed it. Moreover, the law states that in any case, it’s not possible to revoke the residency of East Jerusalem residents, who have a special status, and leave them without any residency.”
“We will petition the High Court on behalf of these four, who, as you’ll recall, have been waging a legal battle against the revocation of their residency since 2006 and won their petition a few months ago,” he added. “This amendment violates international law, and wholesale revocations, such as are happening today, show that this is a political law by a crazy government.”
19 mar 2018
Elor Azaria, who was convicted of manslaughter after shooting dead a seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist, asked the court to cut his sentence by half and release him immediately; he will instead complete two-thirds of his term before being released in less than two months.
The military parole board decided Monday to cut a third of the sentence given to former soldier Elor Azaria, who was convicted of manslaughter after shooting dead a seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist in Hebron.
Azaria, who has served seven of his 14-month sentence, is expected to be released on May 10.
Azaria's sister Etti slammed the decision, saying "There is no reason to be happy, friends, they refused had and tried to pretty it up with the third!!! The third has nothing to do with them!!!!!! Shame, shame, shame that my family has to hear about it through the media!!!"
His cousin Victor was also unhappy with the decision. "The child needs to continue sitting in prison for another month and a half, if not more. The prosecutors are leftists. No trust in anyone in the government. We won't forgive and won't forget this," he wrote on Facebook.
The military court heard Azaria's request for early release last week. "I shot a murderous terrorist, release me today," he told the court.
"The sooner this affair ends, the better it will be for everyone," said Yoram Sheftel, Azaria's attorney. "Azaria has been in a constant and ceaseless nightmare for two years."
The Military Advocate General's Office, which was opposed to cutting Azaria's sentence by half, said it would not object to cutting it by a third.
"Azaria was convicted of a serious offense of manslaughter. The offense was carried out with intention and not out of negligence or
mistake, according to the determination of the court," said prosecutor, Col. Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas. "Throughout the proceedings, the prisoner has not taken responsibility for his actions, nor did he express regret. We haven't heard that today either; and this morning we even heard a certain degree of rejection of the appeal court's ruling. The court determined Azaria's actions could damage the strength of the IDF."
IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot reduced Azaria's sentence by four months in September. “Your conduct was unacceptable and was contrary to the army's command and values of the IDF,” Eisenkot wrote at the time, qualifying the sympathy behind his decision.
The IDF chief further rebuked Azaria for “the fact that you didn’t take responsibility for your actions and that you never expressed regret.”
Last November, President Reuven Rivlin rejected Azaria's pardon request. At the time, Rivlin noted that "taking all considerations into account ... an additional lightening of your sentence would harm the resilience to the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel. The values of the Israel Defense Forces, and among them the Purity of Arms, are the core foundation of the strength of the Israel Defense Forces, and have always stood strong for us in the just struggle for our right to a safe, national home, and in the building a robust society."
The military parole board decided Monday to cut a third of the sentence given to former soldier Elor Azaria, who was convicted of manslaughter after shooting dead a seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist in Hebron.
Azaria, who has served seven of his 14-month sentence, is expected to be released on May 10.
Azaria's sister Etti slammed the decision, saying "There is no reason to be happy, friends, they refused had and tried to pretty it up with the third!!! The third has nothing to do with them!!!!!! Shame, shame, shame that my family has to hear about it through the media!!!"
His cousin Victor was also unhappy with the decision. "The child needs to continue sitting in prison for another month and a half, if not more. The prosecutors are leftists. No trust in anyone in the government. We won't forgive and won't forget this," he wrote on Facebook.
The military court heard Azaria's request for early release last week. "I shot a murderous terrorist, release me today," he told the court.
"The sooner this affair ends, the better it will be for everyone," said Yoram Sheftel, Azaria's attorney. "Azaria has been in a constant and ceaseless nightmare for two years."
The Military Advocate General's Office, which was opposed to cutting Azaria's sentence by half, said it would not object to cutting it by a third.
"Azaria was convicted of a serious offense of manslaughter. The offense was carried out with intention and not out of negligence or
mistake, according to the determination of the court," said prosecutor, Col. Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas. "Throughout the proceedings, the prisoner has not taken responsibility for his actions, nor did he express regret. We haven't heard that today either; and this morning we even heard a certain degree of rejection of the appeal court's ruling. The court determined Azaria's actions could damage the strength of the IDF."
IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot reduced Azaria's sentence by four months in September. “Your conduct was unacceptable and was contrary to the army's command and values of the IDF,” Eisenkot wrote at the time, qualifying the sympathy behind his decision.
The IDF chief further rebuked Azaria for “the fact that you didn’t take responsibility for your actions and that you never expressed regret.”
Last November, President Reuven Rivlin rejected Azaria's pardon request. At the time, Rivlin noted that "taking all considerations into account ... an additional lightening of your sentence would harm the resilience to the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel. The values of the Israel Defense Forces, and among them the Purity of Arms, are the core foundation of the strength of the Israel Defense Forces, and have always stood strong for us in the just struggle for our right to a safe, national home, and in the building a robust society."
15 mar 2018
Israeli Magistrate Court of Jerusalem on Thursday considered a lawsuit filed by Jewish settlers against the family of the Palestinian Saleh Edyab in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Occupied Jerusalem. The court decided to hold a hearing session on the matter on March 19.
The settlers claim that they own the land over which more than 28 Palestinian homes are constructed in Sheikh Jarrah.
The lawyer of these families, Sami Ershaid, told the PIC reporter that the Palestinian families own the land as provided for in the agreement signed between the Jordanian Government and UNRWA in 1956.
The settlers claim that they own the land over which more than 28 Palestinian homes are constructed in Sheikh Jarrah.
The lawyer of these families, Sami Ershaid, told the PIC reporter that the Palestinian families own the land as provided for in the agreement signed between the Jordanian Government and UNRWA in 1956.
14 mar 2018
The Israeli prosecution is negotiating a plea bargain in the case of two Israeli soldiers accused of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a Palestinian teenager in 2013.
According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the soldiers were serving in the occupation army, when they shot and killed 16-year-old Samir Awad.
The lawyers for the two men claimed that convicting the soldiers would be a selective enforcement of the law, since it is rare for an indictment to be brought against Israeli soldiers who shoot and kill Palestinians.
The two soldiers were participating in an ambush in the vicinity of an apartheid fence near the West Bank village of Budrus in January, 2013 when the murder was perpetrated.
According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the soldiers were serving in the occupation army, when they shot and killed 16-year-old Samir Awad.
The lawyers for the two men claimed that convicting the soldiers would be a selective enforcement of the law, since it is rare for an indictment to be brought against Israeli soldiers who shoot and kill Palestinians.
The two soldiers were participating in an ambush in the vicinity of an apartheid fence near the West Bank village of Budrus in January, 2013 when the murder was perpetrated.
According to the indictment, the soldiers emerged from the ambush and began chasing Awad, who was trapped between the two fences. At that point, one soldier fired two bullets at Awad. His commander then fired three more bullets. Awad was taken to a hospital in Ramallah, where he succumbed to the gunshot wounds.
Alleging that it was not possible to determine which of the bullets was the fatal one, the prosecution decided not to indict the soldiers for manslaughter, but instead on the lesser charges of recklessness and negligence — which carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison.
During the hearing, attorneys for the accused claimed that their clients should not be convicted because it was not proven that they acted negligently and because the law was being selectively enforced in their case. The attorneys presented military data showing that in the last seven years, out of 110 cases in which soldiers had shot and killed Palestinians, only four indictments were filed. The court expressed doubts as to its ability to convict the two men due to the issue of selective enforcement.
The defense lawyers also noted that firing at Palestinians attempting to cross the separation fence is allowed under army regulations.
The defense brought up the possibility of dismissing the charges. Negotiations are underway for a plea agreement and the prosecution is expected to present its decision prior to the next court hearing in the case on March 26.
Alleging that it was not possible to determine which of the bullets was the fatal one, the prosecution decided not to indict the soldiers for manslaughter, but instead on the lesser charges of recklessness and negligence — which carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison.
During the hearing, attorneys for the accused claimed that their clients should not be convicted because it was not proven that they acted negligently and because the law was being selectively enforced in their case. The attorneys presented military data showing that in the last seven years, out of 110 cases in which soldiers had shot and killed Palestinians, only four indictments were filed. The court expressed doubts as to its ability to convict the two men due to the issue of selective enforcement.
The defense lawyers also noted that firing at Palestinians attempting to cross the separation fence is allowed under army regulations.
The defense brought up the possibility of dismissing the charges. Negotiations are underway for a plea agreement and the prosecution is expected to present its decision prior to the next court hearing in the case on March 26.
Approximately 450 Palestinian detainees, held by Israel under arbitrary Administrative Detention orders without charges or trial, continued their boycott of Israeli military courts for the 28th consecutive day.
The detainees declared their boycott of the Israeli military courts on February 15th and are demanding Israel to end the illegal policies of holding them indefinitely, without charges or trial.
They are also calling on all legal and human rights groups to submit their cases, and the ongoing violations, to the International Criminal Court.
There are at least 450 Palestinians held under Administrative Detention orders, most of them spent years imprisoned under these orders, including some who have been imprisoned for more than 14 years.
It is worth mentioning that the number of Administrative Detainees reached 1248 in the year 2015, 1742 in 2016, and 1060 in 2017.
The detainees declared their boycott of the Israeli military courts on February 15th and are demanding Israel to end the illegal policies of holding them indefinitely, without charges or trial.
They are also calling on all legal and human rights groups to submit their cases, and the ongoing violations, to the International Criminal Court.
There are at least 450 Palestinians held under Administrative Detention orders, most of them spent years imprisoned under these orders, including some who have been imprisoned for more than 14 years.
It is worth mentioning that the number of Administrative Detainees reached 1248 in the year 2015, 1742 in 2016, and 1060 in 2017.
