30 may 2016
The Israeli occupation authorities (IOA) ruled for deporting the Palestinian youth Kareem Faysal Abu Khdheir to the U.S. following the end of his prison-term on Monday.
Earlier, on Wednesday, the IOA turned down Kareem’s appeals to cancel the deportation order so as to continue preparations for his marriage.
Kareem, from the Shu’fat refugee camp, was arrested by the Israeli occupation forces on September 5, 2015 following clashes with the occupation troops.
Right before the detention, Kareem was subjected to heavy beating by the IOF and sustained critical bruises in his chest, face, and teeth.
The IOA extended his remand several times despite his deteriorated health status.
Deliberations and hearings held by the Israeli Magistrate’s court over the past four months culminated in a verdict that condemned Abu Khdheir, a holder of American citizenship, of involvement in Jerusalem demonstrations and sentenced him to nine months and a fine of 8,000 shekels.
Born and raised in the U.S. since October 2, 1983, Kareem Abu Khdheir popped in the occupied Palestinian territories on August 28, 2015 for the first time to get married. He had been held for nine months in the Negev jail on allegations of resisting detention, attacking an Israeli border guard, and joining anti-occupation demos.
“The Israeli occupation marred the happiness Kareem and the whole family were longing for,” his mother told a PIC journalist. “We were making the final touches for my son’s wedding day when the IOA slapped the deportation order.”
saw“The IOA reneged on its promises to extend the validity of Kareem’s visa for one week despite the family’s approval to pay 70,000 shekels to that very end,” the mother was quoted as further stating.
Earlier, on Wednesday, the IOA turned down Kareem’s appeals to cancel the deportation order so as to continue preparations for his marriage.
Kareem, from the Shu’fat refugee camp, was arrested by the Israeli occupation forces on September 5, 2015 following clashes with the occupation troops.
Right before the detention, Kareem was subjected to heavy beating by the IOF and sustained critical bruises in his chest, face, and teeth.
The IOA extended his remand several times despite his deteriorated health status.
Deliberations and hearings held by the Israeli Magistrate’s court over the past four months culminated in a verdict that condemned Abu Khdheir, a holder of American citizenship, of involvement in Jerusalem demonstrations and sentenced him to nine months and a fine of 8,000 shekels.
Born and raised in the U.S. since October 2, 1983, Kareem Abu Khdheir popped in the occupied Palestinian territories on August 28, 2015 for the first time to get married. He had been held for nine months in the Negev jail on allegations of resisting detention, attacking an Israeli border guard, and joining anti-occupation demos.
“The Israeli occupation marred the happiness Kareem and the whole family were longing for,” his mother told a PIC journalist. “We were making the final touches for my son’s wedding day when the IOA slapped the deportation order.”
saw“The IOA reneged on its promises to extend the validity of Kareem’s visa for one week despite the family’s approval to pay 70,000 shekels to that very end,” the mother was quoted as further stating.
Ten years of banishment from the occupied holy city of Jerusalem did not kill the dream of return in the hearts of the three Jerusalemite MPs and former minister in the tenth Palestinian Authority government; whom the occupation deported their bodies but not their hearts from Jerusalem, and did not stop their unwavering certainty of return.
Ten years have passed since the decision of the Israeli former interior minister Uri Bar-On to force the Jerusalemite MPs Mohammad Abu Teir, Ahmed Attoun and Mohammed Totah, and former Minister of Jerusalem Affairs in the tenth Palestinian government Khaled Abu Arafa, to choose between resigning from their positions in the Legislative Council and the government, or the confiscation of their personal residency IDs and documents, under the pretext of "lack of loyalty to the state of Israel", and giving them the time period of one month to choose one of the two choices.
Over ten years have passed on this decision, the Palestinian Information Center highlights the case of the Jerusalemite MPs and minister exiled from the city, their feelings towards it, and the updates on their case presented before the Israeli Supreme Court and how they practice their daily lives and their work. MP Sheikh Mohammed Abu Teir, however, has been re-arrested on 29-1-2016.
He has spent a total of 34 years in Israeli jails so far, and still languishes behind its bars.
Waiting for the verdict
Abu Arafa told the PIC: "My colleagues, the three members of the Legislative Council had won the elections for the city of Jerusalem on 25-1-2006, and I have been appointed as a minister for Jerusalem affairs on 28-3-2006.
Before the month period which the occupation gave us to choose between sticking to our national positions or resigning had ended, the Israeli occupation government arrested us on 29-6-2006, on the background of an explosion allegedly engineered by the Palestinian resistance in Tel Aviv, and the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 24-6-2006”.
He stressed that the election results that were contrary to the expectations of the of the Israeli occupation authorities (IOA) were the reason for the occupation's decision to launch a relentless campaign of arrests resulting in the arrest of 45 deputies and nine ministers and a number of mayors.
This campaign affected the Palestinian democracy, and hit the Palestinian unit, he elaborated. Abu Arafa said: "After four years of imprisonment, we were released in 2010, the Israeli occupation police gave us a month to leave the city of Jerusalem but we did not.
When the month period ended, the authorities arrested Sheikh Abu Teir from his home town of Sur Baher. The rest of us decided to protest against the occupation measures against us, so we pitched a sit-in tent inside the Red Cross headquarters in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood for nine months, then the occupation authorities raided the headquarters and arrested us on 23-1-2012, and we were imprisoned for two more years.”
As for the condition of the case in the Israeli courts, Abu Arafa said, "It lasted more than nine years in the Israeli Supreme Court … numerous appeals were made to postpone the withdrawal of residence cards (the blue ID), overturn the whole decision, or allow us to remain in the city of Jerusalem until the judgment in the case is passed. However, the Supreme Court refused all appeals".
The case file is still in the Israeli Supreme Court for the ninth month of the ninth year in a row, waiting for a decision.
Ten years have passed since the decision of the Israeli former interior minister Uri Bar-On to force the Jerusalemite MPs Mohammad Abu Teir, Ahmed Attoun and Mohammed Totah, and former Minister of Jerusalem Affairs in the tenth Palestinian government Khaled Abu Arafa, to choose between resigning from their positions in the Legislative Council and the government, or the confiscation of their personal residency IDs and documents, under the pretext of "lack of loyalty to the state of Israel", and giving them the time period of one month to choose one of the two choices.
Over ten years have passed on this decision, the Palestinian Information Center highlights the case of the Jerusalemite MPs and minister exiled from the city, their feelings towards it, and the updates on their case presented before the Israeli Supreme Court and how they practice their daily lives and their work. MP Sheikh Mohammed Abu Teir, however, has been re-arrested on 29-1-2016.
He has spent a total of 34 years in Israeli jails so far, and still languishes behind its bars.
Waiting for the verdict
Abu Arafa told the PIC: "My colleagues, the three members of the Legislative Council had won the elections for the city of Jerusalem on 25-1-2006, and I have been appointed as a minister for Jerusalem affairs on 28-3-2006.
Before the month period which the occupation gave us to choose between sticking to our national positions or resigning had ended, the Israeli occupation government arrested us on 29-6-2006, on the background of an explosion allegedly engineered by the Palestinian resistance in Tel Aviv, and the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 24-6-2006”.
He stressed that the election results that were contrary to the expectations of the of the Israeli occupation authorities (IOA) were the reason for the occupation's decision to launch a relentless campaign of arrests resulting in the arrest of 45 deputies and nine ministers and a number of mayors.
This campaign affected the Palestinian democracy, and hit the Palestinian unit, he elaborated. Abu Arafa said: "After four years of imprisonment, we were released in 2010, the Israeli occupation police gave us a month to leave the city of Jerusalem but we did not.
When the month period ended, the authorities arrested Sheikh Abu Teir from his home town of Sur Baher. The rest of us decided to protest against the occupation measures against us, so we pitched a sit-in tent inside the Red Cross headquarters in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood for nine months, then the occupation authorities raided the headquarters and arrested us on 23-1-2012, and we were imprisoned for two more years.”
As for the condition of the case in the Israeli courts, Abu Arafa said, "It lasted more than nine years in the Israeli Supreme Court … numerous appeals were made to postpone the withdrawal of residence cards (the blue ID), overturn the whole decision, or allow us to remain in the city of Jerusalem until the judgment in the case is passed. However, the Supreme Court refused all appeals".
The case file is still in the Israeli Supreme Court for the ninth month of the ninth year in a row, waiting for a decision.
Israeli Prosecution General demanded the Israeli Central Court in Haifa to cancel the citizenship of the Palestinian Alaa Zeyoud from Umm al-Fahm.
This came after Israeli Prosecution had submitted an indictment against him to the court charging him of involvement in a security offense last October.
Israeli sources revealed that this step was made based on an order by Israeli Minister of Interior Aryeh Deri, and the endorsement of the Israeli attorney general.
Adalah Center and Citizen Rights Association announced their intention to appeal the demand at court and consider it as an extreme step and a violation of human rights.
Both institutions sent a letter in March in which they called Deri not to take this step. "The cancellation of the citizenship is a racist brutal resolution based on no legal accounts.
If he was a Jew, the Interior Ministry would not suggest the cancellation of his citizenship”, lawyers of both institutions said.
This came after Israeli Prosecution had submitted an indictment against him to the court charging him of involvement in a security offense last October.
Israeli sources revealed that this step was made based on an order by Israeli Minister of Interior Aryeh Deri, and the endorsement of the Israeli attorney general.
Adalah Center and Citizen Rights Association announced their intention to appeal the demand at court and consider it as an extreme step and a violation of human rights.
Both institutions sent a letter in March in which they called Deri not to take this step. "The cancellation of the citizenship is a racist brutal resolution based on no legal accounts.
If he was a Jew, the Interior Ministry would not suggest the cancellation of his citizenship”, lawyers of both institutions said.
25 may 2016
Nazareth Magistrate's Court rules against state and orders it to pay compensation to family whose son was killed by IDF fire at a checkpoint near Nablus in 2004; an arbitration hearing will determine the amount owed to the family.
A Palestinian taxi driver who was suspected of being a terrorist was killed in May 2006 by IDF fire near the Ein Bidan checkpoint, east of Nablus. Seven years ago, the taxi driver's family filed a lawsuit for compensation and recently the Nazareth Magistrate's Court made a decision: The state acted negligently and must compensate the family. Moreover, the sum of the compensation will be determined in an arbitration hearing.
A Palestinian taxi driver who was suspected of being a terrorist was killed in May 2006 by IDF fire near the Ein Bidan checkpoint, east of Nablus. Seven years ago, the taxi driver's family filed a lawsuit for compensation and recently the Nazareth Magistrate's Court made a decision: The state acted negligently and must compensate the family. Moreover, the sum of the compensation will be determined in an arbitration hearing.
The state claimed that on the same day of the incident, an IDF soldiers had identified the driver and another person as suspects and had been pursuing them. The state added that the soldiers opened fire at the suspect only after the driver pointed a weapon at them, causing them to believe that their lives were in imminent danger.
The State claimed that it was not liable to pay damages both because the soldiers' actions were lawful and because the incident was a part of an ongoing military operation.
The vice president of the Nazareth Magistrate's Court, Judge Yousif Sohil, ruled that the case's evidence leaves no doubt of the state's responsibility for paying compensation.
The judge found inherent contradictions between the testimonies provided by the two soldiers involved in the shooting. In particular, he found the testimony of the soldier, who opened fire, patently unreliable. For example, while the soldier who opened fire claimed that he genuinely feared for his life, his fellow soldier testified that he had aborted the arrest operation and returned to the checkpoint.
Thus, the judge determined that the testimony of the soldier who opened fire was at odds with his fellow soldier, who did not fear for his life or say that the driver pointed his weapon at him and his compatriot.
The judge also wondered why the state claimed that the passenger the driver picked up was a dangerous suspect, as the soldiers did not pursue him when he left the scene.
The judge also stated that the state refrained from presenting evidence that it should have in its possession. Specifically, the state relied solely on the testimony of the soldiers involved in the incident and did not take the testimony of other soldiers, who were present at the checkpoint. It also did not present reports or a recording from the scene of the incident and did not reveal if an investigation into the incident took place.
The judge added that the emergency room report indicates that the bullet wound was in the back, strengthening the evidence against the state
It was determined that there was no justification for the shooting the driver nor was a warning regarding an unusual security situation issued. It was also ruled that the driver was not a terrorist or a wanted individual and the claim that he was carrying a weapon was not sufficiently proven.
The judge also ruled that the soldiers did not act in accordance with the established rules of engagement. He further concluded that the soldier fired at the citizen without an order from his commander, leading to tragic results.
Therefore, the judge determined that the state must compensate the prosecution, which is being set in an arbitration hearing. The state also must pay NIS 19,000 for the family's legal expenses.
A Palestinian taxi driver who was suspected of being a terrorist was killed in May 2006 by IDF fire near the Ein Bidan checkpoint, east of Nablus. Seven years ago, the taxi driver's family filed a lawsuit for compensation and recently the Nazareth Magistrate's Court made a decision: The state acted negligently and must compensate the family. Moreover, the sum of the compensation will be determined in an arbitration hearing.
A Palestinian taxi driver who was suspected of being a terrorist was killed in May 2006 by IDF fire near the Ein Bidan checkpoint, east of Nablus. Seven years ago, the taxi driver's family filed a lawsuit for compensation and recently the Nazareth Magistrate's Court made a decision: The state acted negligently and must compensate the family. Moreover, the sum of the compensation will be determined in an arbitration hearing.
The state claimed that on the same day of the incident, an IDF soldiers had identified the driver and another person as suspects and had been pursuing them. The state added that the soldiers opened fire at the suspect only after the driver pointed a weapon at them, causing them to believe that their lives were in imminent danger.
The State claimed that it was not liable to pay damages both because the soldiers' actions were lawful and because the incident was a part of an ongoing military operation.
The vice president of the Nazareth Magistrate's Court, Judge Yousif Sohil, ruled that the case's evidence leaves no doubt of the state's responsibility for paying compensation.
The judge found inherent contradictions between the testimonies provided by the two soldiers involved in the shooting. In particular, he found the testimony of the soldier, who opened fire, patently unreliable. For example, while the soldier who opened fire claimed that he genuinely feared for his life, his fellow soldier testified that he had aborted the arrest operation and returned to the checkpoint.
Thus, the judge determined that the testimony of the soldier who opened fire was at odds with his fellow soldier, who did not fear for his life or say that the driver pointed his weapon at him and his compatriot.
The judge also wondered why the state claimed that the passenger the driver picked up was a dangerous suspect, as the soldiers did not pursue him when he left the scene.
The judge also stated that the state refrained from presenting evidence that it should have in its possession. Specifically, the state relied solely on the testimony of the soldiers involved in the incident and did not take the testimony of other soldiers, who were present at the checkpoint. It also did not present reports or a recording from the scene of the incident and did not reveal if an investigation into the incident took place.
The judge added that the emergency room report indicates that the bullet wound was in the back, strengthening the evidence against the state
It was determined that there was no justification for the shooting the driver nor was a warning regarding an unusual security situation issued. It was also ruled that the driver was not a terrorist or a wanted individual and the claim that he was carrying a weapon was not sufficiently proven.
The judge also ruled that the soldiers did not act in accordance with the established rules of engagement. He further concluded that the soldier fired at the citizen without an order from his commander, leading to tragic results.
Therefore, the judge determined that the state must compensate the prosecution, which is being set in an arbitration hearing. The state also must pay NIS 19,000 for the family's legal expenses.
21 may 2016
The Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements in Bil’in, near Ramallah, said that testimonies by Israeli soldiers against nonviolent activist Abdullah Abu Rahma, are contradicting each other, while the prosecutor keeps pushing for his continued detention.
Abu Rahma was kidnapped several days ago during a nonviolent protest marking the Palestinian Nakba, in Bil’in village, west of Ramallah, and was sent to court on May 17, when the judge said that he should be released instantly despite the prosecutor’s demands.
The judge stated that the two soldiers, who provided false testimonies, should be the ones behind bars, and recommended investigating them, although he did not issue a warrant for their arrest.
But, the prosecutor had a different opinion, and called four additional soldiers to testify against Abu Rahma, in an attempt to increase the pressure and ensure his continued detention.
Abu Rahma family said the Israeli prosecution demanded holding him under interrogation for eight additional days, but the judge granted them one day.
The third court session was held on Thursday, October 19, and the prosecutor presented a case that lacked any real indictments, yet, supported by soldiers’ ‘eyewitness’ testimonies, that made no real sense.
The judge then ordered Abu Rahma’s release and set a 15000 Israeli Shekels bail, but the prosecutor appealed and asked for additional 72 hours.
Dr. Rateb Abu Rahma, media coordinator of the Popular Committee and Abdullah’s brother, said the prosecution described Abdullah as a person who “constantly violates law and order,” through his continued activities, and described him as a central figure in them.
He added that when the soldiers kidnapped Abdullah, it was during a sports activity in the village, and not even during one of the legitimate nonviolent protests, and that the soldiers assaulted and beat him continuously.
The prosecutor tried to label Abu Rahma’s nonviolent activities in Bil’in as a “constant danger”, and alleged he “attacked soldiers,” and “entered a closed military zone,” in addition to “not abiding by instructions given by the army.”
Lawyer Hafeth Bornat, who attended all sessions, said the lawyers who represented Abu Rahma managed to prove, including through videos, that all of the allegations are false, and that his abduction and imprisonment are illegal, but still, the prosecutor appealed.
“The court called other soldiers to testify, despite the falsification and illegal conducts of the army and the prosecutor – during the three previous sessions, all what we heard was contradicting testimonies,” the lawyer said, “It became clear that the indictments are baseless, and that is why the first and second rulings were made to release Abdullah, but now, by all means, the prosecutor wants to keep him imprisoned.”
The Popular Committee against the Wall in the West Bank strongly denounced the ruling to keep Abu Rahma detained, and described it as a political, racist ruling targeting all nonviolent popular resistance activists, part of Israel’s continued efforts to silence this resistance that exposes the true face of the illegal occupation, and its apartheid policies.
It demanded European officials, and representatives of local, regional and international human rights groups, operating in Palestine and Israel to attend the Abdullah’s upcoming court session scheduled for this Sunday, May 22, in the Ofer Israeli prison near Ramallah, at three in the afternoon.
The Popular Committee said Abu Rahma is a human rights defender, and that the Israeli attempts to keep him imprisoned are direct violations of International Law, and are part of Israel’s ongoing harassment and abuse of human rights defenders.
It is worth mentioning that that Joris Van Winckel, the European Political Affairs Officer – EU representative, a number of peace activists and the immediate family of Abu Rahma, attended the latest court session.
Abu Rahma was kidnapped several days ago during a nonviolent protest marking the Palestinian Nakba, in Bil’in village, west of Ramallah, and was sent to court on May 17, when the judge said that he should be released instantly despite the prosecutor’s demands.
The judge stated that the two soldiers, who provided false testimonies, should be the ones behind bars, and recommended investigating them, although he did not issue a warrant for their arrest.
But, the prosecutor had a different opinion, and called four additional soldiers to testify against Abu Rahma, in an attempt to increase the pressure and ensure his continued detention.
Abu Rahma family said the Israeli prosecution demanded holding him under interrogation for eight additional days, but the judge granted them one day.
The third court session was held on Thursday, October 19, and the prosecutor presented a case that lacked any real indictments, yet, supported by soldiers’ ‘eyewitness’ testimonies, that made no real sense.
The judge then ordered Abu Rahma’s release and set a 15000 Israeli Shekels bail, but the prosecutor appealed and asked for additional 72 hours.
Dr. Rateb Abu Rahma, media coordinator of the Popular Committee and Abdullah’s brother, said the prosecution described Abdullah as a person who “constantly violates law and order,” through his continued activities, and described him as a central figure in them.
He added that when the soldiers kidnapped Abdullah, it was during a sports activity in the village, and not even during one of the legitimate nonviolent protests, and that the soldiers assaulted and beat him continuously.
The prosecutor tried to label Abu Rahma’s nonviolent activities in Bil’in as a “constant danger”, and alleged he “attacked soldiers,” and “entered a closed military zone,” in addition to “not abiding by instructions given by the army.”
Lawyer Hafeth Bornat, who attended all sessions, said the lawyers who represented Abu Rahma managed to prove, including through videos, that all of the allegations are false, and that his abduction and imprisonment are illegal, but still, the prosecutor appealed.
“The court called other soldiers to testify, despite the falsification and illegal conducts of the army and the prosecutor – during the three previous sessions, all what we heard was contradicting testimonies,” the lawyer said, “It became clear that the indictments are baseless, and that is why the first and second rulings were made to release Abdullah, but now, by all means, the prosecutor wants to keep him imprisoned.”
The Popular Committee against the Wall in the West Bank strongly denounced the ruling to keep Abu Rahma detained, and described it as a political, racist ruling targeting all nonviolent popular resistance activists, part of Israel’s continued efforts to silence this resistance that exposes the true face of the illegal occupation, and its apartheid policies.
It demanded European officials, and representatives of local, regional and international human rights groups, operating in Palestine and Israel to attend the Abdullah’s upcoming court session scheduled for this Sunday, May 22, in the Ofer Israeli prison near Ramallah, at three in the afternoon.
The Popular Committee said Abu Rahma is a human rights defender, and that the Israeli attempts to keep him imprisoned are direct violations of International Law, and are part of Israel’s ongoing harassment and abuse of human rights defenders.
It is worth mentioning that that Joris Van Winckel, the European Political Affairs Officer – EU representative, a number of peace activists and the immediate family of Abu Rahma, attended the latest court session.
20 may 2016
After obtaining the coalition's support of his capital punishment legislation, the Yisrael Beytenu will have to concede several other issues close to his heart, including religion and state.
Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman has noted several significant achievements in his talks to join the government, particularly in defense and immigration, but his party will still have to compromise on quite a few other issues that it has thus far defined as "principal."
Because of the makeup of the coalition—which includes religious parties Bayit Yehudi, Shas and United Torah Judaism—Lieberman will have to make concessions on issues of religion and state that would no doubt rile up the ultra-Orthodox parties.
This means that once again, Lieberman will not be able to promote new legislation on Jewish conversions and civil unions. He will also not be able to push legislation on the drafting of ultra-Orthodox men to the IDF or on canceling marriage registration districts (allowing couples to register for marriage wherever they choose, which will make the process easier).
In return for these concessions, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to throw the coalition's support because Lieberman's proposal to impose death sentence on convicted terrorists. The controversial bill has gone up to a vote in the current term and failed due to objection from the coalition.
According to the legislation, capital punishment will only apply to Palestinians and could only be given by military courts. Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel—even if they reside in the West Bank—will be tried at civilian courts and the death penalty will therefore not apply to them.
Lieberman is also seeking to make it easier on military courts to sentence convicted terrorists to death - by changing the military court's orders to allow a majority of just two, rather than three, judges to dole out the death sentence.
In addition, the defense minister will have the authority to implement a policy of capital punishment to terrorists.
However, the legislation might still face obstacles as Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, like his predecessors, is expected to object to the bill.
Less than a year ago, Mandelblit's predecessor Yehuda Weinstein determined such legislation does not lead to the desired deterrence, as terrorists are already willing to sacrifice their life while carrying out the attack.
Officials in the justice system pointed to other issues the legislation could face. Firstly, it goes out against international trend to cancel capital punishment, which could lead to harsh international criticism. "Two thirds of the world's states, including in the European Union, have eliminated the death penalty," former AG Weinstein wrote in his legal opinion last year.
Secondly, there is concern of committing an "irreversible error": in the past, people were executed only to be found innocent later.
Finally, the legislation can also encounter constitutional obstacles, as it contradicts Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Israeli law includes a small amount of offenses that could lead to the death sentence, including the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law, treason, and offenses in military law. But most of these are leftovers from the British Mandate period and the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty essentially "cancels" such legislation.
Likud officials clarified on Thursday night, however, that "this isn't an issue that could thwart the agreement between the two sides."
In addition, Netanyahu worked on Thursday to quell the objections to Lieberman's appointment as defense minister, saying in private conversations that he would be a "pragmatic and moderate" defense minister, and that the Yisrael Beytenu leader supports regional diplomatic moves.
As part of its coalition deal, Yisrael Beytenu will also receive the chairmanship of one of the Knesset's committees, an MK serving as the deputy Knesset Speaker, a representative in the ministerial committee on legislation, the establishment of a cabinet on immigration, and representation in the socio-economic cabinet.
In addition, Lieberman received assurances from the prime minister that the work on the pension reform for new immigrants will continue and be completed.
While Lieberman himself will be appointed defense minister, the Immigration Absorption Ministry will be given to his close ally Sofa Landver, who has served in the position before.
The signing of the coalition deal with Yisrael Beytenu will lead to a cabinet shuffle. After giving the defense and immigration portfolios to Lieberman, the prime minister will have to find an alternative job for outgoing Immigration Minister Ze'ev Elkin. Outgoing Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon has quit the Knesset and announced he was taking a hiatus from political life, which means Netanyahu will no longer have to find an alternative for him.
Netanyahu still holds several portfolios: the Foreign Ministry, the Economy Ministry, the Communications Ministry and the Regional Cooperation Ministry.
One of the options the prime minister is examining is offering Elkin a limited Economy Ministry including just industry and trade, after Welfare Minister Haim Katz demanded to return authority over labor to his own ministry. However, it is also likely Netanyahu will find an entirely different role for Elkin.
Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman has noted several significant achievements in his talks to join the government, particularly in defense and immigration, but his party will still have to compromise on quite a few other issues that it has thus far defined as "principal."
Because of the makeup of the coalition—which includes religious parties Bayit Yehudi, Shas and United Torah Judaism—Lieberman will have to make concessions on issues of religion and state that would no doubt rile up the ultra-Orthodox parties.
This means that once again, Lieberman will not be able to promote new legislation on Jewish conversions and civil unions. He will also not be able to push legislation on the drafting of ultra-Orthodox men to the IDF or on canceling marriage registration districts (allowing couples to register for marriage wherever they choose, which will make the process easier).
In return for these concessions, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to throw the coalition's support because Lieberman's proposal to impose death sentence on convicted terrorists. The controversial bill has gone up to a vote in the current term and failed due to objection from the coalition.
According to the legislation, capital punishment will only apply to Palestinians and could only be given by military courts. Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel—even if they reside in the West Bank—will be tried at civilian courts and the death penalty will therefore not apply to them.
Lieberman is also seeking to make it easier on military courts to sentence convicted terrorists to death - by changing the military court's orders to allow a majority of just two, rather than three, judges to dole out the death sentence.
In addition, the defense minister will have the authority to implement a policy of capital punishment to terrorists.
However, the legislation might still face obstacles as Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, like his predecessors, is expected to object to the bill.
Less than a year ago, Mandelblit's predecessor Yehuda Weinstein determined such legislation does not lead to the desired deterrence, as terrorists are already willing to sacrifice their life while carrying out the attack.
Officials in the justice system pointed to other issues the legislation could face. Firstly, it goes out against international trend to cancel capital punishment, which could lead to harsh international criticism. "Two thirds of the world's states, including in the European Union, have eliminated the death penalty," former AG Weinstein wrote in his legal opinion last year.
Secondly, there is concern of committing an "irreversible error": in the past, people were executed only to be found innocent later.
Finally, the legislation can also encounter constitutional obstacles, as it contradicts Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Israeli law includes a small amount of offenses that could lead to the death sentence, including the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law, treason, and offenses in military law. But most of these are leftovers from the British Mandate period and the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty essentially "cancels" such legislation.
Likud officials clarified on Thursday night, however, that "this isn't an issue that could thwart the agreement between the two sides."
In addition, Netanyahu worked on Thursday to quell the objections to Lieberman's appointment as defense minister, saying in private conversations that he would be a "pragmatic and moderate" defense minister, and that the Yisrael Beytenu leader supports regional diplomatic moves.
As part of its coalition deal, Yisrael Beytenu will also receive the chairmanship of one of the Knesset's committees, an MK serving as the deputy Knesset Speaker, a representative in the ministerial committee on legislation, the establishment of a cabinet on immigration, and representation in the socio-economic cabinet.
In addition, Lieberman received assurances from the prime minister that the work on the pension reform for new immigrants will continue and be completed.
While Lieberman himself will be appointed defense minister, the Immigration Absorption Ministry will be given to his close ally Sofa Landver, who has served in the position before.
The signing of the coalition deal with Yisrael Beytenu will lead to a cabinet shuffle. After giving the defense and immigration portfolios to Lieberman, the prime minister will have to find an alternative job for outgoing Immigration Minister Ze'ev Elkin. Outgoing Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon has quit the Knesset and announced he was taking a hiatus from political life, which means Netanyahu will no longer have to find an alternative for him.
Netanyahu still holds several portfolios: the Foreign Ministry, the Economy Ministry, the Communications Ministry and the Regional Cooperation Ministry.
One of the options the prime minister is examining is offering Elkin a limited Economy Ministry including just industry and trade, after Welfare Minister Haim Katz demanded to return authority over labor to his own ministry. However, it is also likely Netanyahu will find an entirely different role for Elkin.
11 may 2016
Jewish organizations Tuesday called for raising the Israeli flag over the Dome of the Rock at the Aqsa Mosque during the commemoration of the Palestine Nakba in 1948 which coincides on May 15.
The organizations concerned with what has been known as “calling for building Temple of Solomon” published posters on social media networking and electronic websites demonstrating a Jewish settler over the Dome of the Rock while raising the Israeli flag.
In a similar context, Hebrew Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper stated that Israeli Minister of Culture and Sports Miri Regev works on setting a new law that obligates all institutions funded by the Israeli government to raise the Israeli flag including sports stadiums, theaters, and public halls.
The organizations concerned with what has been known as “calling for building Temple of Solomon” published posters on social media networking and electronic websites demonstrating a Jewish settler over the Dome of the Rock while raising the Israeli flag.
In a similar context, Hebrew Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper stated that Israeli Minister of Culture and Sports Miri Regev works on setting a new law that obligates all institutions funded by the Israeli government to raise the Israeli flag including sports stadiums, theaters, and public halls.
10 may 2016
Israeli bulldozers razed on Monday al-Shati’ park in Jisr al-Zarqa town in addition to a wedding hall in Kabol village in northern 1948 Occupied Palestine for lacking construction permits.
Local sources revealed that Israeli authorities knocked down the hall regardless of the Israeli Supreme Court's decision of freezing demolition since the issuance of the structure's construction permit was under process.
For his part, head of the popular committee and member of Jisr al-Zarqa town’s council Sami al-Ali called for supporting Palestinian families affected by the demolition.
Al-Ali told Quds Press that the Arab towns in the 1948 Occupied Palestine suffer from a land crisis for development construction and lack public halls and parks due to Israeli discrimination, demolition, confiscation, siege and harassment policies.
Local sources revealed that Israeli authorities knocked down the hall regardless of the Israeli Supreme Court's decision of freezing demolition since the issuance of the structure's construction permit was under process.
For his part, head of the popular committee and member of Jisr al-Zarqa town’s council Sami al-Ali called for supporting Palestinian families affected by the demolition.
Al-Ali told Quds Press that the Arab towns in the 1948 Occupied Palestine suffer from a land crisis for development construction and lack public halls and parks due to Israeli discrimination, demolition, confiscation, siege and harassment policies.
8 may 2016
Activists intend to petition Supreme Court to release key documents on Yemenite Children affair, which may prove that thousands of babies were kidnapped after state's founding
The Yemenite Children affair has resurfaced once again in the public debate following the Achim Vekayamim organization’s stated intention to renew efforts to discover the truth behind one of the cases, which has caused a storm in Israel for decades.
The governmental investigative committee on the mysterious disappearance of Yemeni children classified documents and materials about the case that were classified in 2001. Achim Vekayamim, which comprises dozens of Yemenite family members who were either allegedly kidnapped (or parents of those allegedly kidnapped), announced its intention to petition the Supreme Court to provide access to these files.
The Yemenite Children affair raised much suspicion in Israel after hundreds of babies and toddlers belonging to Yemenite immigrants to the newly founded state between 1948 and 1954 were said to be kidnapped and sold to Ashkenazi families.
The parents were reportedly informed that their children had died in the hospital. However, some of the children later sought to track their biological families and discovered DNA matches. Suspicions were further vindicated when parents received military draft orders when their “deceased” children would have reached 18 years old—an indication that they were still, in fact, recorded as alive.
The case shifted back into public scrutiny when families began protesting the state's decision to classify the material reviewed by the investigative committee for 70 years (until 2071), which was announced yesterday on Channel 2. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked announced Saturday that she would again assess the material and make a decision thereafter.
Journalist Yael Tzadok, who began investigating the case in 1994, and who is also an activist for the victims, said that the state has been “hiding the kidnapping case for almost 60 years. (The affair) already began in the 1950s. We know about governmental letters which were passed between the Health Ministry and the police that were stamped ‘top secret.’ They knew this and hid it.”
“Also during the Knesset meetings in which the subject was raised,” Tzadok continued, “and clearly from the minutes, it is clear that many public figures knew the children had disappeared, were kidnapped, and even sold. A catalogue with 20,000 names of Yemenite children containing details about them also disappeared. The state needs to remove the classification orders from the documents and to finally tell the truth to the families who were victims of kidnappings and also to the entire public. They can’t lie to everyone forever.”
The activists contend that the state’s decision to classify the evidence, the documents, the inutes and the investigative material is without precedent. “Obviously it raises suspicion that we are talking about a more serious case than we can imagine,” Tzadok said. “This is a committee that pretended that it was going to investigate and to expose the truth. Yet what was discovered was the systematic destruction of evidence and witnesses are afraid to talk about about the classification of the documents."
The organization’s lawyer, Yael Neger, who is providing the activists with pro bono legal service, says that she has personal experience in the affair. “They also tried to kidnap my father. They forcefully took him from my grandmother's hands, but this attempt did not succeed,” explained Neger. She further threatened that if the state refused to declassify the relevant documentation, more than 100 families would petition the Supreme Court against the decision.
The Yemenite Children affair has resurfaced once again in the public debate following the Achim Vekayamim organization’s stated intention to renew efforts to discover the truth behind one of the cases, which has caused a storm in Israel for decades.
The governmental investigative committee on the mysterious disappearance of Yemeni children classified documents and materials about the case that were classified in 2001. Achim Vekayamim, which comprises dozens of Yemenite family members who were either allegedly kidnapped (or parents of those allegedly kidnapped), announced its intention to petition the Supreme Court to provide access to these files.
The Yemenite Children affair raised much suspicion in Israel after hundreds of babies and toddlers belonging to Yemenite immigrants to the newly founded state between 1948 and 1954 were said to be kidnapped and sold to Ashkenazi families.
The parents were reportedly informed that their children had died in the hospital. However, some of the children later sought to track their biological families and discovered DNA matches. Suspicions were further vindicated when parents received military draft orders when their “deceased” children would have reached 18 years old—an indication that they were still, in fact, recorded as alive.
The case shifted back into public scrutiny when families began protesting the state's decision to classify the material reviewed by the investigative committee for 70 years (until 2071), which was announced yesterday on Channel 2. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked announced Saturday that she would again assess the material and make a decision thereafter.
Journalist Yael Tzadok, who began investigating the case in 1994, and who is also an activist for the victims, said that the state has been “hiding the kidnapping case for almost 60 years. (The affair) already began in the 1950s. We know about governmental letters which were passed between the Health Ministry and the police that were stamped ‘top secret.’ They knew this and hid it.”
“Also during the Knesset meetings in which the subject was raised,” Tzadok continued, “and clearly from the minutes, it is clear that many public figures knew the children had disappeared, were kidnapped, and even sold. A catalogue with 20,000 names of Yemenite children containing details about them also disappeared. The state needs to remove the classification orders from the documents and to finally tell the truth to the families who were victims of kidnappings and also to the entire public. They can’t lie to everyone forever.”
The activists contend that the state’s decision to classify the evidence, the documents, the inutes and the investigative material is without precedent. “Obviously it raises suspicion that we are talking about a more serious case than we can imagine,” Tzadok said. “This is a committee that pretended that it was going to investigate and to expose the truth. Yet what was discovered was the systematic destruction of evidence and witnesses are afraid to talk about about the classification of the documents."
The organization’s lawyer, Yael Neger, who is providing the activists with pro bono legal service, says that she has personal experience in the affair. “They also tried to kidnap my father. They forcefully took him from my grandmother's hands, but this attempt did not succeed,” explained Neger. She further threatened that if the state refused to declassify the relevant documentation, more than 100 families would petition the Supreme Court against the decision.
