12 sept 2013
A Tel Aviv district court has rejected legal claims against Palestinian officials accusing them of incitement against Israel which led to “terrorist” attacks against Israel and Israelis.
Judge Dalia Gannot strictly rejected the testimony of the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli media watchdog group which monitors Palestinian media outlets and publishes reports about incitement against Israel.
Marcus was summoned as an expert witness by the complainant, an Israeli family whose son was killed in a shooting about 10 years earlier. But the judge deemed Marcus an “incompetent” witness.
The family’s attorney accused senior Palestinian officials including President Mahmoud Abbas of incitement against Israel which encouraged Palestinians to carry out attacks against Israelis, one of which led to the killing of a member of the family. The attorney claimed in his pleading that senior PA officials were indirectly responsible for the killing.
Lawyer Joseph Arnone, who represented the PA, argued that the challenge was completely false as the incitement theory was based on quotes taken from unofficial and unpopular news outlets.
In her decision, the Israeli judge said that “there were remarks reflecting incitement against Israel and the Jews in Palestinian media, but there was no evidence of deliberate incitement.”
The witness, Itamar Marcus, presented to the judge reports he and his watchdog group translated from Palestinian media outlets as well as video footage. He argued that through his work running a media watchdog he reached the a conclusion that “the PA follows an explicit policy of incitement against Israel and the Jews.”
However, the judge decided that the evidence Marcus gave could not prove his claims about incitement.
The judge argued that Marcus quoted newspapers such as al-Hayat al-Jadida, al-Ayyam and al-Quds as well as the Voice of Palestine radio station, but he ignored very popular Palestinian news outlets.
When she asked him about al-Fajr newspaper, Marcus said he was not familiar with that paper. The judge also highlighted that a majority of the newspaper quotes were taken from al-Hayat al-Jadida which is among the least popular Palestinian newspapers, while only very few quotes were taken from the most popular newspaper al-Quds.
Asked to explain, Marcus said he did not care how popular his sources were as long as these sources represented the PA.
“I don’t care if only 8,000 people read al-Hayat al-Jadida, all I care about is the messages this paper disseminates,” the lawyer quoted him as saying.
Marcus agreed with the judge that Wafa news agency was the official agency representing the Palestine Liberation Organization but he did not use quotes from the agency to support his claims.
The judge noted that Marcus ignored the more popular Palestinian news outlets, and thus his theory of incitement was unacceptable. She wondered why he did not use any quotes from major Arab channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya which are very popular in the Palestinian territories.
The judge concluded that the complainant could not prove incitement by PA officials. “If that was true, the PA would have used the most popular news outlets to disseminate its messages to as many Palestinians as possible,” she noted.
She noted that there was still “disgusting” incitement in some Palestinian outlets.
The judge also pointed out that the complainant presented only 76 news reports and articles documented in 15 years from 1995 to 2010. This is very few, the judge said, given the large number of news reports published in 15 years. She added that many of the reports reflected the writers’ own opinions.
“There is no doubt some Palestinian news outlets incite against Israel and the Jews, but it is clear this is not an official policy of the PA,” the judge concluded.
Judge Dalia Gannot strictly rejected the testimony of the founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli media watchdog group which monitors Palestinian media outlets and publishes reports about incitement against Israel.
Marcus was summoned as an expert witness by the complainant, an Israeli family whose son was killed in a shooting about 10 years earlier. But the judge deemed Marcus an “incompetent” witness.
The family’s attorney accused senior Palestinian officials including President Mahmoud Abbas of incitement against Israel which encouraged Palestinians to carry out attacks against Israelis, one of which led to the killing of a member of the family. The attorney claimed in his pleading that senior PA officials were indirectly responsible for the killing.
Lawyer Joseph Arnone, who represented the PA, argued that the challenge was completely false as the incitement theory was based on quotes taken from unofficial and unpopular news outlets.
In her decision, the Israeli judge said that “there were remarks reflecting incitement against Israel and the Jews in Palestinian media, but there was no evidence of deliberate incitement.”
The witness, Itamar Marcus, presented to the judge reports he and his watchdog group translated from Palestinian media outlets as well as video footage. He argued that through his work running a media watchdog he reached the a conclusion that “the PA follows an explicit policy of incitement against Israel and the Jews.”
However, the judge decided that the evidence Marcus gave could not prove his claims about incitement.
The judge argued that Marcus quoted newspapers such as al-Hayat al-Jadida, al-Ayyam and al-Quds as well as the Voice of Palestine radio station, but he ignored very popular Palestinian news outlets.
When she asked him about al-Fajr newspaper, Marcus said he was not familiar with that paper. The judge also highlighted that a majority of the newspaper quotes were taken from al-Hayat al-Jadida which is among the least popular Palestinian newspapers, while only very few quotes were taken from the most popular newspaper al-Quds.
Asked to explain, Marcus said he did not care how popular his sources were as long as these sources represented the PA.
“I don’t care if only 8,000 people read al-Hayat al-Jadida, all I care about is the messages this paper disseminates,” the lawyer quoted him as saying.
Marcus agreed with the judge that Wafa news agency was the official agency representing the Palestine Liberation Organization but he did not use quotes from the agency to support his claims.
The judge noted that Marcus ignored the more popular Palestinian news outlets, and thus his theory of incitement was unacceptable. She wondered why he did not use any quotes from major Arab channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya which are very popular in the Palestinian territories.
The judge concluded that the complainant could not prove incitement by PA officials. “If that was true, the PA would have used the most popular news outlets to disseminate its messages to as many Palestinians as possible,” she noted.
She noted that there was still “disgusting” incitement in some Palestinian outlets.
The judge also pointed out that the complainant presented only 76 news reports and articles documented in 15 years from 1995 to 2010. This is very few, the judge said, given the large number of news reports published in 15 years. She added that many of the reports reflected the writers’ own opinions.
“There is no doubt some Palestinian news outlets incite against Israel and the Jews, but it is clear this is not an official policy of the PA,” the judge concluded.
11 sept 2013
Israeli Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to defer consideration of the issue of the applicability of the Absentee Property Law, which has been used to take over Palestinian land, in occupied East Jerusalem. Lawyer Suhad Bishara from Adalah center for Palestinian rights and lawyer Avigdor Feldman raised the problematic implications associated with the application of the law in occupied East Jerusalem.
Additionally, the attorneys emphasized that applying the law to the occupied territory violates the International Humanitarian Law.
The two lawyers also pointed that the Israeli domestic law was legislated in the political context of 1950, and declared that it could never apply on lands occupied in 1967 and to confiscate properties belonging to residents that are protected civilians under international law.
In addition, the attorneys stated that the state does not apply the Absentee Property Law to the properties of settlers in the West Bank, and thus, its exclusive application to the properties of Palestinians constitutes unlawful discrimination.
The court, presided over by Supreme Court President Asher D. Grunis, asked all of the parties to provide legal opinions on its suggestion to declare the law’s application in east Jerusalem unconstitutional, and to give their own ideas on whether this decision should be applied retroactively or only prospectively.
Adalah will provide its legal opinion on this subject in the coming week. Adalah had requested permission to join the case as an amicus curie for the purpose of legal argument.
In an opinion presented to the Court, Adalah argued that the opinion of Attorney General Weinstein to apply the Absentee Property Law to East Jeruslem changes the existing decades-long status quo that has been supported by successive attorney generals since 1967, whereupon the law does not apply to the East Jerusalem properties of Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
Additionally, the attorneys emphasized that applying the law to the occupied territory violates the International Humanitarian Law.
The two lawyers also pointed that the Israeli domestic law was legislated in the political context of 1950, and declared that it could never apply on lands occupied in 1967 and to confiscate properties belonging to residents that are protected civilians under international law.
In addition, the attorneys stated that the state does not apply the Absentee Property Law to the properties of settlers in the West Bank, and thus, its exclusive application to the properties of Palestinians constitutes unlawful discrimination.
The court, presided over by Supreme Court President Asher D. Grunis, asked all of the parties to provide legal opinions on its suggestion to declare the law’s application in east Jerusalem unconstitutional, and to give their own ideas on whether this decision should be applied retroactively or only prospectively.
Adalah will provide its legal opinion on this subject in the coming week. Adalah had requested permission to join the case as an amicus curie for the purpose of legal argument.
In an opinion presented to the Court, Adalah argued that the opinion of Attorney General Weinstein to apply the Absentee Property Law to East Jeruslem changes the existing decades-long status quo that has been supported by successive attorney generals since 1967, whereupon the law does not apply to the East Jerusalem properties of Palestinian residents of the West Bank.
10 sept 2013
The Israeli high court is predicted to hold a hearing on the application of the Absentees' Property Law to Palestinian West Bank residents who own properties in East Jerusalem, and the transfer of ownership of these properties to the Custodian of Absentees' Properties', which belongs to the Ministry of Finance. The Legal Center for Arab Minority's Rights in Israel (Adalah) warned of the seriousness of such a step that would lead effectively to the confiscation of the property and would allow it to be sold on the private market, thereby severing any link between the owners and their property.
Considering the extreme importance of the issue and its various aspects, Adalah asked the Supreme Court to intervene and to present an opinion as amicus curiae.
Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara, who prepared the brief, explained that the legal position of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who supports the application of the law in East Jerusalem, undermines the status quo that has prevailed for decades. Since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, successive Attorney Generals have taken the position that the law does not apply to the properties of the West Bank residents that are located in East Jerusalem.
Adalah emphasized that considering West Bank residents to be "absentees" does not result in any change in their legal status, but rather, is a result of a decision unilaterally taken by the State of Israel, when it decided to annex occupied areas of Jerusalem to its territory.
In this situation, the decision to declare residents of the West Bank as "absentees" is deplorable, as they never left their homes.
Former Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has written an opinion on this matter, stating that "the absence of owners of property in East Jerusalem who are from the West Bank is technical in nature, since they were transformed into absentees through a unilateral decision made by the State of Israel."
Mazuz added a legal point of view: "the issue concerns ‘present absentees’ who are deprived of their right to property by the impact of the sweeping technical wording of the law."
The Absentee Property Law-1950 aims to control all the property of Palestinians who fled and became refugees during the Nakba of 1948, and to transfer its ownership of the State of Israel. According to the law, every individual who was living in one of the countries considered to be an "enemy state" in 1947 will be deemed as an "absentee" and will have his or her his property confiscated and transferred to the Custodian of Absentees' Properties.
Considering the extreme importance of the issue and its various aspects, Adalah asked the Supreme Court to intervene and to present an opinion as amicus curiae.
Adalah Attorney Suhad Bishara, who prepared the brief, explained that the legal position of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who supports the application of the law in East Jerusalem, undermines the status quo that has prevailed for decades. Since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, successive Attorney Generals have taken the position that the law does not apply to the properties of the West Bank residents that are located in East Jerusalem.
Adalah emphasized that considering West Bank residents to be "absentees" does not result in any change in their legal status, but rather, is a result of a decision unilaterally taken by the State of Israel, when it decided to annex occupied areas of Jerusalem to its territory.
In this situation, the decision to declare residents of the West Bank as "absentees" is deplorable, as they never left their homes.
Former Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has written an opinion on this matter, stating that "the absence of owners of property in East Jerusalem who are from the West Bank is technical in nature, since they were transformed into absentees through a unilateral decision made by the State of Israel."
Mazuz added a legal point of view: "the issue concerns ‘present absentees’ who are deprived of their right to property by the impact of the sweeping technical wording of the law."
The Absentee Property Law-1950 aims to control all the property of Palestinians who fled and became refugees during the Nakba of 1948, and to transfer its ownership of the State of Israel. According to the law, every individual who was living in one of the countries considered to be an "enemy state" in 1947 will be deemed as an "absentee" and will have his or her his property confiscated and transferred to the Custodian of Absentees' Properties.
9 sept 2013
On 10 September 2013, the Israeli high court will discuss if and how Israel's discriminatory Absentees' Property Law (1950) should be applied to Palestinians residing in the occupied West Bank and their property in occupied East Jerusalem.
For Palestinians, this hearing will be crucial for determining the usefulness of legal challenges of this law in Israeli courts. The Civic Coalition-Jerusalem has issued a special brief about the Israeli Absentees' Property Law on this occasion. The Coalition also calls upon members of the international community in the OPT to bear witness and attend the court hearing which is likely to end without a decision.
The Absentees' Property Law (1950) is one of Israel's major legal instruments for seizing Palestinian property. By classifying every citizen or persons present in an "enemy" territory or country as an "absentee" vis-à-vis property in Israel, the law has served to confiscate the land and real estate left behind by the Palestinians who were forcibly displaced 1948. It is still in effect and used to confiscate Palestinian properties more than six decades later.
In 1967, all Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) theoretically became "absentees" vis-à-vis their property in East Jerusalem which had become "Israel" as a result of the illegal annexation. Israel's annexation and extension of the Absentees' Property Law to occupied East Jerusalem violates international law and has been strongly condemned by the United Nations.
In the lead-up to the 10 September high court hearing, Israeli State Attorney and Government Legal Advisor Yehuda Weinstein declared that the Absentees' Property Law applies and can be enforced on West Bank Palestinians with properties in occupied East Jerusalem.(2) Later, Weinstein announced that he shares the position of his predecessors, stating that the law should only be applied in special circumstances, subject to approval by the attorney general, because its application to West Bank residents raises "considerable legal difficulties with regard to both international law and administrative law". This, combined with the announcement that the state recommends the release of the part of the Hotel Cliff confiscated from West Bank Palestinians (but not the part belonging to Palestinians living abroad), has been heralded by Israeli media as a sign that Israel would "stop using the 1950 law to confiscate East Jerusalem Arab properties for Jews." Media reports of this kind are, however, misleading. The fact that the recommendation to release the confiscated property is based on Article 29 of the Absentees' Property Law indicates that the state is seeking to avoid a principled decision suspending the law for West Bank Palestinians by treating the petitioners as "absentees" whose properties in Jerusalem may be released on special grounds.
Since 1967, Israel has applied the law in a selective and gradual manner. East Jerusalem properties of persons in "enemy" countries have been confiscated. Palestinians who were present in occupied East Jerusalem on 28 June 1967 were excluded from the scope of the law. Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, outside the annexed area, did not face extensive or systematic expropriation due to the legal opinions of Israel's state attorneys (Shamgar, 1968; Mazuz, 2005) that the law was not to be applied to this group, if their "absence" is the result of the expansion of Jerusalem's boundaries, because such absence was merely "technical" or "artificial".
These restrictive instructions, however, did not stop attempts to expropriate East Jerusalem property of Palestinian West Bank residents by declaring it "absentee properties". Such cases continued to be brought in the Jerusalem district court, with judges adopting divergent and even contradictory arguments and decisions. Appeals against the above decisions were filed in the Israeli high court by the Palestinian owners and the state. The court consolidated these cases for examination by an expanded seven-judge panel in the hearing on 10 September.
Source: Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem
For Palestinians, this hearing will be crucial for determining the usefulness of legal challenges of this law in Israeli courts. The Civic Coalition-Jerusalem has issued a special brief about the Israeli Absentees' Property Law on this occasion. The Coalition also calls upon members of the international community in the OPT to bear witness and attend the court hearing which is likely to end without a decision.
The Absentees' Property Law (1950) is one of Israel's major legal instruments for seizing Palestinian property. By classifying every citizen or persons present in an "enemy" territory or country as an "absentee" vis-à-vis property in Israel, the law has served to confiscate the land and real estate left behind by the Palestinians who were forcibly displaced 1948. It is still in effect and used to confiscate Palestinian properties more than six decades later.
In 1967, all Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) theoretically became "absentees" vis-à-vis their property in East Jerusalem which had become "Israel" as a result of the illegal annexation. Israel's annexation and extension of the Absentees' Property Law to occupied East Jerusalem violates international law and has been strongly condemned by the United Nations.
In the lead-up to the 10 September high court hearing, Israeli State Attorney and Government Legal Advisor Yehuda Weinstein declared that the Absentees' Property Law applies and can be enforced on West Bank Palestinians with properties in occupied East Jerusalem.(2) Later, Weinstein announced that he shares the position of his predecessors, stating that the law should only be applied in special circumstances, subject to approval by the attorney general, because its application to West Bank residents raises "considerable legal difficulties with regard to both international law and administrative law". This, combined with the announcement that the state recommends the release of the part of the Hotel Cliff confiscated from West Bank Palestinians (but not the part belonging to Palestinians living abroad), has been heralded by Israeli media as a sign that Israel would "stop using the 1950 law to confiscate East Jerusalem Arab properties for Jews." Media reports of this kind are, however, misleading. The fact that the recommendation to release the confiscated property is based on Article 29 of the Absentees' Property Law indicates that the state is seeking to avoid a principled decision suspending the law for West Bank Palestinians by treating the petitioners as "absentees" whose properties in Jerusalem may be released on special grounds.
Since 1967, Israel has applied the law in a selective and gradual manner. East Jerusalem properties of persons in "enemy" countries have been confiscated. Palestinians who were present in occupied East Jerusalem on 28 June 1967 were excluded from the scope of the law. Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, outside the annexed area, did not face extensive or systematic expropriation due to the legal opinions of Israel's state attorneys (Shamgar, 1968; Mazuz, 2005) that the law was not to be applied to this group, if their "absence" is the result of the expansion of Jerusalem's boundaries, because such absence was merely "technical" or "artificial".
These restrictive instructions, however, did not stop attempts to expropriate East Jerusalem property of Palestinian West Bank residents by declaring it "absentee properties". Such cases continued to be brought in the Jerusalem district court, with judges adopting divergent and even contradictory arguments and decisions. Appeals against the above decisions were filed in the Israeli high court by the Palestinian owners and the state. The court consolidated these cases for examination by an expanded seven-judge panel in the hearing on 10 September.
Source: Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem
5 sept 2013
Israeli private security guards try to stop Palestinians from working their land in the West Bank village of Sinjil, near the Israeli outpost of Givat Haro’e , August 18, 2013. Three years after settlers invaded their land, following the HCJ injunction order issued in the petition filed by the landowners through Yesh Din, landowners from the village of Sinjil arrive to their land for the first time.
Last month we reported that after a three-year sisyphic legal struggle, the IDF finally implemented a High Court of Justice order that Ali Shabana be allowed to access his land; and that the son of the owner, accompanied by a Yesh Din team, ploughed the land.
All’s well that ends well? A proof that a dim legal dawn finally breaks through the mist? Not quite.
The settlers, as we reported, were not happy that we saved the poor man’s sheep, and a person called Nachman, who represented himself as the security officer of the outpost Givat Ha’Ro’eh, summoned the IDF forces. Two hours later, Colonel Yossi Pinto, Commander of the Binyamin Brigade, signed a Closed Military Zone order, which forbade the owners of the land from reaching it and effectively ordered the end of plowing by the owners. It’s important to note that Shabana had informed the military in advance – through the Palestinian District Coordination Office – about his arrival; we, for our part, informed the state attorneys.
So, basically Col. Pinto decided that a High Court of Justice ruling is something that can be toyed with; that the colonel’s opinion, after consulting with the outpost’s security officer, is easily more important than that of three High Court justices, since, well, they are civilians and he is in uniform. Col. Pinto admittedly removed the trees the settlers planted in the plot in order to steal Shabana’s land, as the court ordered, but no sooner had he carried the order out than he returned to his usual position, that of a settler collaborator, and undermined the spirit of the ruling, which was that the land should be returned to its owners so they could do with it as they please. It’s important to note that Pinto’s behavior isn’t exceptional; you could replace “Pinto” with basically the name of any brigade, division or regional commander in the West Bank.
If so, the question is: what do we need a legal process for? Why burn hundreds of hours of lawyers’ work, both ours and the state’s? In their case, Col. Pinto drilled a small new hole in the government’s budget – nothing to write home about given the Titanic-sized hole the army regularly forces in it, but even so. Why waste the justices’ costly time? Why lay waste to forest, why siphon away the ink of already-pale squids in order to print thousands upon thousands of pages, and then wrap them all in another quickly-extinct resource, the remains of dinosaurs lovingly crushed by the Earth for millions of years? Have you no pity for this planet? Why go to all these lengths?
Notice the effective and economical way Col. Pinto treated the issue: one dense and short page, prepared in advance so all you have to do is change the date from time to time. Admittedly, the Colonel, in his munificence, allows “dispensing copies of this declaration to whomever asks for it”, and yes, it is accompanied by a map; yet even so, who needs all the mess of a free and public legal debate, with all its costs when one can simply leave the issue to the tender mercies of efficient functionaries such as Col. Pinto?
The question whether the military commander Pinto overstepped his authority is of particular interest. On one scale, we have a decision of the HCJ. On the other, the military commander, wrapped in his aura of awe, with all the authorities it accumulated in the Emergency Acts and other orders effective in the occupied territories: the combined powers of a Turkish Pasha, a British district commander, and the Israeli military commander whose order is sufficient to carry out collective punishment, such as the demolition of a house.
Experience shows that the High Court shies away from confrontation with this figure, which seems drawn from the nightmares of the Christian Day of Wrath: the dreadful judge sitting on his high throne, judging the quick and the dead, from whose judgment there is no appeal, before him there is no room for argument, only – since you can’t have recourse to the plea, as in the Jewish hymn, of “remember how you loved us, Oh Lord” – a protestation and supplication (“salve me!”) for mercy. And so, when the military commander, in his incarnation as Col. Pinto assisted by a jurist, says that this is his will, the HCJ will, as a rule, retreat. Even when the military commander openly disregards its rulings, the ancient maxim that two kings cannot use the same crown is always before the court, and it is leery of using the words “contempt of court.”
And so, in a short document mostly written in advance, Col. Pinto turned three years of legal arguments into dust, emptied them of their core – and thereby exposed the shaky foundations of the fiction of “the rule of law” in the Occupied Territories, and the inherent weakness of the High Court’s legal oversight. We ought to remember this.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
Last month we reported that after a three-year sisyphic legal struggle, the IDF finally implemented a High Court of Justice order that Ali Shabana be allowed to access his land; and that the son of the owner, accompanied by a Yesh Din team, ploughed the land.
All’s well that ends well? A proof that a dim legal dawn finally breaks through the mist? Not quite.
The settlers, as we reported, were not happy that we saved the poor man’s sheep, and a person called Nachman, who represented himself as the security officer of the outpost Givat Ha’Ro’eh, summoned the IDF forces. Two hours later, Colonel Yossi Pinto, Commander of the Binyamin Brigade, signed a Closed Military Zone order, which forbade the owners of the land from reaching it and effectively ordered the end of plowing by the owners. It’s important to note that Shabana had informed the military in advance – through the Palestinian District Coordination Office – about his arrival; we, for our part, informed the state attorneys.
So, basically Col. Pinto decided that a High Court of Justice ruling is something that can be toyed with; that the colonel’s opinion, after consulting with the outpost’s security officer, is easily more important than that of three High Court justices, since, well, they are civilians and he is in uniform. Col. Pinto admittedly removed the trees the settlers planted in the plot in order to steal Shabana’s land, as the court ordered, but no sooner had he carried the order out than he returned to his usual position, that of a settler collaborator, and undermined the spirit of the ruling, which was that the land should be returned to its owners so they could do with it as they please. It’s important to note that Pinto’s behavior isn’t exceptional; you could replace “Pinto” with basically the name of any brigade, division or regional commander in the West Bank.
If so, the question is: what do we need a legal process for? Why burn hundreds of hours of lawyers’ work, both ours and the state’s? In their case, Col. Pinto drilled a small new hole in the government’s budget – nothing to write home about given the Titanic-sized hole the army regularly forces in it, but even so. Why waste the justices’ costly time? Why lay waste to forest, why siphon away the ink of already-pale squids in order to print thousands upon thousands of pages, and then wrap them all in another quickly-extinct resource, the remains of dinosaurs lovingly crushed by the Earth for millions of years? Have you no pity for this planet? Why go to all these lengths?
Notice the effective and economical way Col. Pinto treated the issue: one dense and short page, prepared in advance so all you have to do is change the date from time to time. Admittedly, the Colonel, in his munificence, allows “dispensing copies of this declaration to whomever asks for it”, and yes, it is accompanied by a map; yet even so, who needs all the mess of a free and public legal debate, with all its costs when one can simply leave the issue to the tender mercies of efficient functionaries such as Col. Pinto?
The question whether the military commander Pinto overstepped his authority is of particular interest. On one scale, we have a decision of the HCJ. On the other, the military commander, wrapped in his aura of awe, with all the authorities it accumulated in the Emergency Acts and other orders effective in the occupied territories: the combined powers of a Turkish Pasha, a British district commander, and the Israeli military commander whose order is sufficient to carry out collective punishment, such as the demolition of a house.
Experience shows that the High Court shies away from confrontation with this figure, which seems drawn from the nightmares of the Christian Day of Wrath: the dreadful judge sitting on his high throne, judging the quick and the dead, from whose judgment there is no appeal, before him there is no room for argument, only – since you can’t have recourse to the plea, as in the Jewish hymn, of “remember how you loved us, Oh Lord” – a protestation and supplication (“salve me!”) for mercy. And so, when the military commander, in his incarnation as Col. Pinto assisted by a jurist, says that this is his will, the HCJ will, as a rule, retreat. Even when the military commander openly disregards its rulings, the ancient maxim that two kings cannot use the same crown is always before the court, and it is leery of using the words “contempt of court.”
And so, in a short document mostly written in advance, Col. Pinto turned three years of legal arguments into dust, emptied them of their core – and thereby exposed the shaky foundations of the fiction of “the rule of law” in the Occupied Territories, and the inherent weakness of the High Court’s legal oversight. We ought to remember this.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
3 sept 2013
By Yesh Din, written by Yossi Gurvitz
The IDF and Border Police killed three more Palestinians last week. Despite the IDF’s ‘knife in the back’ legend that it betrays its own, its combat soldiers have little reason to fear its ‘justice’ system.
Anyone following the Israeli morning radio broadcasts is already accustomed to the mantra-like report of IDF soldiers arresting “wanted persons” during the night, and that they were “turned over for interrogation by the security forces.” Behind this short line, supplied to the reporters by the IDF Spokesman on the condition that they broadcast “out of their own mouths,” without attribution, stand the nightly operations the IDF carries deep in Palestinian-controlled territory.
At the beginning of last week, one of these operations went awry, and it ended with three dead Palestinians and more than a dozen wounded. As usual in such cases, the army was quick to claim that “the soldiers’ lives were in danger.”
We don’t know exactly what took place in Qalandiya Camp early last Monday morning, but this incident ought to be investigated, and investigated thoroughly – as in any case when a person is killed by security forces. When someone claims time and time again that he is in mortal danger, yet somehow keeps dodging it leaving bodies behind, one must wonder whether this isn’t a tactic intended to reduce judicial and media pressure.
There’s a long list of cases showing this is indeed the trend: my favorite example took place in March 2010 near Awarta. The facts are that when the smoke cleared there were two dead Palestinians lying on the ground. The soldiers claimed they were attacked by pitchfork-wielding Palestinians. That was also the first IDF Spokesman version: a terror attack was averted. Following an investigation, the soldiers were forced to admit (Hebrew) that the pitchfork was left on the ground. They claimed, however, that the force commander “felt in danger” after hearing one of the Palestinians “mumbling a prayer,” and hence he opened fire. One of the Palestinians, he claimed, tried to attack him with a bottle; the other, he said, tried to enter Palestinian mythology by coming at him, in a scene reminiscent of McGyver, with a syringe (!).
None of the soldiers involved in the Awartha incident was indicted. And as our factsheet shows (see the full document below), this isn’t an isolated case, it’s a method.
Any army, at least any army spending considerable amounts of time out of the marching grounds, will develop the legend made famous by defeated German generals, by the name of “knife in the back”: we could have carried out the mission, the army would claim, but evil politicians handcuffed us. The Israeli version of the legend mutated in the mid-1980s, when soldiers began claiming that “we can’t leave our base without a lawyer,” saying orders, regulations and the fear of a court martial handicapped them.
But, media manipulation aside, there is data. And the data smashes this legend to pieces. Between the years 2000-2013 the IDF and related forces killed, according to B’Tselem’s data, some 5,000 Palestinians. Some of them, of course, were killed in “normal,” non-suspect military circumstances, but according to B’Tselem’s data at least a quarter of the people killed were not involved in the fighting. We do not have data for the years 2000-2003, and data is also missing for 2010 (the IDF Spokesman who seems to have forgotten it is not the Chief of Staff’s personal PR flack but rather a public servant, refused to provide data for that year); but between 2003-2012, 179 cases were opened against soldiers suspected of the homicide of Palestinians. Abandoning the legal norm upheld until then, the Military Judge Advocate ordered at the beginning of the Second Intifada that no investigations of killings are to be held unless he specifically ordered otherwise. This is a self-sustaining system: when homicide is not investigated – and in the Western judicial tradition, which Israel wants to belong to, every killing by the authorities is investigated – naturally events do not come to the surface on their own volition.
Out of the 179 investigations the army opened, only 16 matured into indictments – and of these, only six ended in convictions related to homicide. Out of these, only one soldier served more than one year in prison: this is Taysir Hayb, who killed British activist Thomas Hurndall without any provocation. Hayb was convicted of manslaughter – not murder – and was sentenced to eight years in prison, which he did not serve in full (Hebrew). It’s important to note that Hayb had two factors against him: firstly, he killed a Western citizen, whose family refused to act as if nothing happened. A British inquest (which Israel, naturally, boycotted) found that Hurnfall was maliciously slain. Secondly, Hayb is not a Jew; he is a Bedouin. I dare to say, and the data backs me, that an ordinary Jewish soldier killing an ordinary Palestinian wouldn’t suffer such bad luck.
For what a court ruled was negligent manslaughter, Captain Zvi Koretzki was sentenced to two months imprisonment. Two officers convicted of negligence, after shooting up a vehicle in which a Palestinian toddler, Muhammad Jawadath, was sitting, and killing him, received, respectively, 30 days imprisonment and a four-month suspended sentence, and a month of work for the military and a four-month suspended sentence. Such is the price of a Palestinian toddler’s blood in the military justice system. A first sergeant convicted of “negligent manslaughter” and an attempt to obstruct the investigation received four-and-a-half months imprisonment and a similar suspended sentence; he was also demoted. Another NCO, convicted of “negligent manslaughter” – to wit, firing an assault rifle at the center of the body of a fleeing young man who was not endangering him in any way – was sentenced to seven months imprisonment, with the judge noting that “the effects of the event on the accused and his family were also a consideration when it came to sentencing, as did the operative and symbolic meaning of a demotion” (Hebrew). For in the grand scheme of things, what is the importance of a young Palestinian’s life, when weighed against ” the operative and symbolic meaning of a demotion?”
Yesh Din research department director Ziv Stahl commented on the shooting on Monday morning: “the data shows that practically, the chances of a soldier who killed a Palestinian civilian without justification being investigated, much less punished, are between low and nil. Such a reality encourages illegal use of arms by soldiers even in clearly civilian settings, such as demonstrations.”
Precisely. The “knife in the back” legend of the IDF is bogus. The soldiers do not need a lawyer in the field. They need, rather, officers who will direct them to only fire accurately and only when necessary, as well as a basic training in the ethics of using a firearm. The famous ruling of an Israeli court about a manifestly illegal order speaks of “illegality piercing the eye and upsetting the heart, assuming the eye is not blind and the heart is not blocked or corrupt.”
One suspects the heart is already corrupt.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
The IDF and Border Police killed three more Palestinians last week. Despite the IDF’s ‘knife in the back’ legend that it betrays its own, its combat soldiers have little reason to fear its ‘justice’ system.
Anyone following the Israeli morning radio broadcasts is already accustomed to the mantra-like report of IDF soldiers arresting “wanted persons” during the night, and that they were “turned over for interrogation by the security forces.” Behind this short line, supplied to the reporters by the IDF Spokesman on the condition that they broadcast “out of their own mouths,” without attribution, stand the nightly operations the IDF carries deep in Palestinian-controlled territory.
At the beginning of last week, one of these operations went awry, and it ended with three dead Palestinians and more than a dozen wounded. As usual in such cases, the army was quick to claim that “the soldiers’ lives were in danger.”
We don’t know exactly what took place in Qalandiya Camp early last Monday morning, but this incident ought to be investigated, and investigated thoroughly – as in any case when a person is killed by security forces. When someone claims time and time again that he is in mortal danger, yet somehow keeps dodging it leaving bodies behind, one must wonder whether this isn’t a tactic intended to reduce judicial and media pressure.
There’s a long list of cases showing this is indeed the trend: my favorite example took place in March 2010 near Awarta. The facts are that when the smoke cleared there were two dead Palestinians lying on the ground. The soldiers claimed they were attacked by pitchfork-wielding Palestinians. That was also the first IDF Spokesman version: a terror attack was averted. Following an investigation, the soldiers were forced to admit (Hebrew) that the pitchfork was left on the ground. They claimed, however, that the force commander “felt in danger” after hearing one of the Palestinians “mumbling a prayer,” and hence he opened fire. One of the Palestinians, he claimed, tried to attack him with a bottle; the other, he said, tried to enter Palestinian mythology by coming at him, in a scene reminiscent of McGyver, with a syringe (!).
None of the soldiers involved in the Awartha incident was indicted. And as our factsheet shows (see the full document below), this isn’t an isolated case, it’s a method.
Any army, at least any army spending considerable amounts of time out of the marching grounds, will develop the legend made famous by defeated German generals, by the name of “knife in the back”: we could have carried out the mission, the army would claim, but evil politicians handcuffed us. The Israeli version of the legend mutated in the mid-1980s, when soldiers began claiming that “we can’t leave our base without a lawyer,” saying orders, regulations and the fear of a court martial handicapped them.
But, media manipulation aside, there is data. And the data smashes this legend to pieces. Between the years 2000-2013 the IDF and related forces killed, according to B’Tselem’s data, some 5,000 Palestinians. Some of them, of course, were killed in “normal,” non-suspect military circumstances, but according to B’Tselem’s data at least a quarter of the people killed were not involved in the fighting. We do not have data for the years 2000-2003, and data is also missing for 2010 (the IDF Spokesman who seems to have forgotten it is not the Chief of Staff’s personal PR flack but rather a public servant, refused to provide data for that year); but between 2003-2012, 179 cases were opened against soldiers suspected of the homicide of Palestinians. Abandoning the legal norm upheld until then, the Military Judge Advocate ordered at the beginning of the Second Intifada that no investigations of killings are to be held unless he specifically ordered otherwise. This is a self-sustaining system: when homicide is not investigated – and in the Western judicial tradition, which Israel wants to belong to, every killing by the authorities is investigated – naturally events do not come to the surface on their own volition.
Out of the 179 investigations the army opened, only 16 matured into indictments – and of these, only six ended in convictions related to homicide. Out of these, only one soldier served more than one year in prison: this is Taysir Hayb, who killed British activist Thomas Hurndall without any provocation. Hayb was convicted of manslaughter – not murder – and was sentenced to eight years in prison, which he did not serve in full (Hebrew). It’s important to note that Hayb had two factors against him: firstly, he killed a Western citizen, whose family refused to act as if nothing happened. A British inquest (which Israel, naturally, boycotted) found that Hurnfall was maliciously slain. Secondly, Hayb is not a Jew; he is a Bedouin. I dare to say, and the data backs me, that an ordinary Jewish soldier killing an ordinary Palestinian wouldn’t suffer such bad luck.
For what a court ruled was negligent manslaughter, Captain Zvi Koretzki was sentenced to two months imprisonment. Two officers convicted of negligence, after shooting up a vehicle in which a Palestinian toddler, Muhammad Jawadath, was sitting, and killing him, received, respectively, 30 days imprisonment and a four-month suspended sentence, and a month of work for the military and a four-month suspended sentence. Such is the price of a Palestinian toddler’s blood in the military justice system. A first sergeant convicted of “negligent manslaughter” and an attempt to obstruct the investigation received four-and-a-half months imprisonment and a similar suspended sentence; he was also demoted. Another NCO, convicted of “negligent manslaughter” – to wit, firing an assault rifle at the center of the body of a fleeing young man who was not endangering him in any way – was sentenced to seven months imprisonment, with the judge noting that “the effects of the event on the accused and his family were also a consideration when it came to sentencing, as did the operative and symbolic meaning of a demotion” (Hebrew). For in the grand scheme of things, what is the importance of a young Palestinian’s life, when weighed against ” the operative and symbolic meaning of a demotion?”
Yesh Din research department director Ziv Stahl commented on the shooting on Monday morning: “the data shows that practically, the chances of a soldier who killed a Palestinian civilian without justification being investigated, much less punished, are between low and nil. Such a reality encourages illegal use of arms by soldiers even in clearly civilian settings, such as demonstrations.”
Precisely. The “knife in the back” legend of the IDF is bogus. The soldiers do not need a lawyer in the field. They need, rather, officers who will direct them to only fire accurately and only when necessary, as well as a basic training in the ethics of using a firearm. The famous ruling of an Israeli court about a manifestly illegal order speaks of “illegality piercing the eye and upsetting the heart, assuming the eye is not blind and the heart is not blocked or corrupt.”
One suspects the heart is already corrupt.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
23 aug 2013
|
|
A former child prisoner speaks out as investigation launched into alleged torture of Palestinian child detainees.
Israeli police have launched an investigation into allegations that Palestinian children were tortured by officers in at least one police station. The children are accusing the police of being subjected to violence while being held in jail, and also say they were wrongfully accused of having committed crimes. Al Jazeera’s Sue Turton spoke to one of the alleged victims in the Occupied West Bank. |
Since November 2009, B’Tselem, a non governmental organization, has received testimonies from 64 Palestinian residents of the Bethlehem and Hebron districts, claiming they were subjected to threats, violence, and torture during their interrogation at the Gush Etzion police station. Fifty-six of them were minors at the time of their interrogation.
Interrogators at the police station threaten Palestinians with the hopes of obtaining confessions, which they record and later use to convict them. “The high number of reports B’Tselem has received regarding violent interrogations at the Etzion station, and the fact that they span several years, gives rise to heavy suspicion that this is not a case of a single interrogator who chose to use illegal interrogation methods, but rather an entire apparatus that backs him up and allows such conduct to take place,” B’Tselem spokeswoman, Sarit Michaeli, said.
M.A., a resident of Husan, was 15 years old at the time of his arrest. He recounts his experience at the police station. “The interrogator “Daud” took me outside with a soldier. They blindfolded me. The plastic cable ties were still on my hands. They put me in a car and started driving. I don’t know where they took me. We reached some place outside Etzion and they forced me out of the car. My hands really hurt because of the cable ties. They took off my blindfold. I didn’t know where I was. They tied me to a tree, and then they raised my cuffed hands and tied them to the tree, too. It hurt a lot. “Daud” started punching me. After a few minutes, he took out a gun and said: “I’ll murder you if you don’t confess! Out here, no one will find you. We’ll kill you and leave you here.”
Twelve of the 64 claimed the interrogator threatened them or female relatives with sexual assault, including rape and genital injury. Six were threatened with execution; in another eight cases, the interrogators threatened to harm family members; and in five cases, they threatened to electrocute the interrogatees, including in a way that would permanently damage their fertility.
Out of the 64 cases B’Tselem documented, Michaeli said, 33 families did not want to file complaints, and another 20 dropped their complaints after they were filed. 11 cases have been filed, eight are still under investigation, and three of the cases have been closed.
M.H., another resident of Husan, was 14 years old at the time of his arrest. He recounts his experience at the police station. “The interrogator made me go into a room. He grabbed my head and started banging it against the wall. Then he punched me, slapped me and kicked my legs. The pain was immense, and I felt like I couldn’t stand any longer. Then he started swearing at me. He said filthy things about me and about my mother. He threatened to rape me, or perform sexual acts on me, if I didn’t confess to throwing stones. His threats really scared me, because he was very cruel and it was just the two of us in the room. I remembered what I’d seen on the news, when British and American soldiers raped and took photos of naked Iraqis.
This is not the first account of Israeli officials using torture to convict Palestinians. B’Tselem declared that any confession obtained through illegal methods, including threats, violence and/or torture, are illegitimate and must be declared as mistrials.
Interrogators at the police station threaten Palestinians with the hopes of obtaining confessions, which they record and later use to convict them. “The high number of reports B’Tselem has received regarding violent interrogations at the Etzion station, and the fact that they span several years, gives rise to heavy suspicion that this is not a case of a single interrogator who chose to use illegal interrogation methods, but rather an entire apparatus that backs him up and allows such conduct to take place,” B’Tselem spokeswoman, Sarit Michaeli, said.
M.A., a resident of Husan, was 15 years old at the time of his arrest. He recounts his experience at the police station. “The interrogator “Daud” took me outside with a soldier. They blindfolded me. The plastic cable ties were still on my hands. They put me in a car and started driving. I don’t know where they took me. We reached some place outside Etzion and they forced me out of the car. My hands really hurt because of the cable ties. They took off my blindfold. I didn’t know where I was. They tied me to a tree, and then they raised my cuffed hands and tied them to the tree, too. It hurt a lot. “Daud” started punching me. After a few minutes, he took out a gun and said: “I’ll murder you if you don’t confess! Out here, no one will find you. We’ll kill you and leave you here.”
Twelve of the 64 claimed the interrogator threatened them or female relatives with sexual assault, including rape and genital injury. Six were threatened with execution; in another eight cases, the interrogators threatened to harm family members; and in five cases, they threatened to electrocute the interrogatees, including in a way that would permanently damage their fertility.
Out of the 64 cases B’Tselem documented, Michaeli said, 33 families did not want to file complaints, and another 20 dropped their complaints after they were filed. 11 cases have been filed, eight are still under investigation, and three of the cases have been closed.
M.H., another resident of Husan, was 14 years old at the time of his arrest. He recounts his experience at the police station. “The interrogator made me go into a room. He grabbed my head and started banging it against the wall. Then he punched me, slapped me and kicked my legs. The pain was immense, and I felt like I couldn’t stand any longer. Then he started swearing at me. He said filthy things about me and about my mother. He threatened to rape me, or perform sexual acts on me, if I didn’t confess to throwing stones. His threats really scared me, because he was very cruel and it was just the two of us in the room. I remembered what I’d seen on the news, when British and American soldiers raped and took photos of naked Iraqis.
This is not the first account of Israeli officials using torture to convict Palestinians. B’Tselem declared that any confession obtained through illegal methods, including threats, violence and/or torture, are illegitimate and must be declared as mistrials.
13 aug 2013
The mother of a Palestinian prisoner at a weekly sit-in in front of the Red Cross headquarters in Gaza City, on 12 August 2013
As part of the US effort to restore utterly futile “peace talks” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel agreed to release 104 Palestinian prisoners in phases, with the first 26 to be freed on 13 August.
According to Addameer, the Palestinian prisoners rights group, most of those slated for release have served more than 25 years in Israeli prisons and are near the end of their sentences.
In many cases, they are the same prisoners Israel has agreed to release in previous agreements, before reneging on those commitments.
Playing up Israeli anguish Israeli media and politicians have been doing their utmost to milk this decision for propaganda purposes, highlighting how unspeakably evil the Palestinians are and what a high and terrible price this is for Israelis.
Isabel Kershner faithfully picks up on this in a New York Times article on the topic today:
Israeli newspapers highlighted the crimes committed by the prisoners, most of whom have served 20 years or more in prison for deadly attacks against Israelis. The list of prisoners, which was released after midnight, included one of the killers of Isaac Rotenberg, a Holocaust survivor who was 67 at the time of his death in 1994, and the man who killed an 84-year-old Israeli, Avraham Kinstler, with blows from an ax.
Kershner ends her article with this heartbreaking pen portrait of Israeli relatives protesting outside the High Court which was hearing petitions against the releases:
One of them was Gila Molcho, the sister of Ian Feinberg, an Israeli lawyer who was bludgeoned to death by a Palestinian man wielding an ax in Gaza in 1993 while he was working on a project there. Ms. Molcho held a framed portrait of her brother, who was 30.
“Don’t let them come home as heroes,” she said of the prisoners to be released. “We will be left holding the pictures.” Weeping, she added, “They are terrorists, not soldiers.”
Palestinians have no such opportunity Of course, it would be inhuman not to empathize with the anguish of any individual whose loved one has died violently.
But what’s most striking – and unremarked – about all this is that Israelis are, by and large, the only ones who have the opportunity to bewail the release of prisoners held for decades for killing their loved ones as some sort of great sacrifice and injustice.
Due to the systematic and near-total impunity that protects Israelis from consequences for killing or injuring Palestinians, there is just no parallel on the Palestinian side.
Going back to the creation of Israel, Palestinians have almost never seen the killers of their children receive appropriate punishment.
Notoriously, Colonel Issachar Shadmi, the brigade commander who ordered the massacre of 47 villagers at Kafr Qassem in 1956, was found guilty of a mere “administrative error” and fined one penny.
The examples of crimes where there has been a total absence of accountability and justice are simply too numerous to list, but they include the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres of thousands of Palestinians during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and more recently more than 1,400 Palestinians killed in Gaza in 2008-2009 during Operation Cast Lead.
In one particularly horrific example, on 4-5 January 2009, Israeli occupation forces herded 100 civilians into the house of Wael al-Samouni, mostly women and children, and then deliberately shelled the house:
Twenty-one family members were killed and 19 injured in the shelling of just that house. Others had been killed, injured and left to die in nearby homes. Nine of the dead in Wa’el Samouni’s house were children, the youngest a baby of six months. The dead children included Wa’el Samouni’s 14-year-old daughter, Rizqa, and 12-year-old son, Faris.
In that case, as in countless others, Israel investigated itself and – surprise! – found no wrongdoing.
Insignificant sentences It would be wrong to say that Israeli soldiers never receive sentences for crimes against Palestinians. One year ago, for instance, an Israeli soldier was handed a sentence of 45 days in prison in a plea bargain on a lesser charge that meant he avoided trial for killing Raya Abu Hajaj, 64, and her daughter Majda, 37.
The mother and daughter were shot dead in the Gaza Strip in January 2009 as they were among civilians waving a white flag and trying to flee the Israeli onslaught.
B’Tselem called for the investigation to be reopened and for the military police to “hold accountable those responsible.”
Has B’Tselem not noticed that Israeli military police operate as if their job is to prevent, not promote, justice for Palestinian victims?
The impunity goes down to the individual level. Who can forget the “Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into” Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza, “and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old.”
He was acquitted of any wrongdoing in her death by an Israeli court in 2005.
In these cases, the names of the accused are not even made public, another form of impunity for Israeli perpetrators.
Recently, I wrote about the case of Michael Gershkowitz an Israeli soldier, who received a risible two-month sentence for an horrific, unprovoked beating of a Palestinian worker that was caught on video.
And then there was the case of the Israeli police officer, Shahar Mizrahi, whose 30-month sentence in 2010, for shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian motorist caused consternation and outrage because it was considered too severe.
Israel’s top police officer and public security minister promised they would lead a campaign to convince Israel’s president to pardon Shahar.
It would be misleading to say that light sentences are the norm for Israelis who kill Palestinians. Any sentence at all is an exception.
The norm is for no serious investigation, and no charges to be brought in the first place.
Every Palestinian child knows this, including Atta Muhammad Atta Sabah, a 12-year-old boy who was shot and paralyzed by an Israeli soldier in Jalazoun refugee camp last May.
“I’m not expecting anything to happen to [the soldier who shot me],” Atta recently said.
Colonial “justice” It bears mentioning that under the 1993 Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority and security forces have no powers to arrest or bring to justice Israelis who commit crimes against Palestinians, a limitation that institutionalizes Israeli colonial “justice.” The Palestinian Authority can only arrest Palestinians.
Indeed, Israel’s main concern in negotiating the Oslo accords was creating a subservient regime that would effectively protect Israeli colonizers from any form of resistance by subjugated Palestinians, something the Palestinian Authority has done for years under the rubric of “fighting terrorism.”
Sentences reduced for Israelis convicted of killing Arabs It would be remiss not to mention that sometimes Israeli civilians do go to prison for long periods for killing Palestinians.
There is the example of Ami Popper, who was serving multiple life sentences for murdering 7 Palestinian laborers in 1990.
But an Israeli serves a life sentence for killing Palestinians under very special conditions, as Ynet reported in May on the occasion of Popper’s latest wedding:
During his time in prison, Popper became religious, got married and had three kids. In 2007, while on prison leave, Popper was involved in a car accident which left his wife and one of his sons dead. He had been driving without a license.
He has since remarried and got divorced. Sunday’s wedding is his third marriage.
Popper’s sentence was reduced from seven life terms to 40 years in a series of pardons and commutations in 1999 by Israel’s then president Ezer Weizman.
That wasn’t all. As Agence France Presse reported on 3 February 1999:
Weizman’s order reduced by four years the 15-year sentence of Yoram Skolnik, who was jailed in 1993 for shooting a bound Palestinian man who had been captured after stabbing a Jewish settler in the West Bank.
Skolnik was originally jailed for life but Weizman already commuted the sentence to 15 years. Nehemia Michbaum, who killed a Palestinian man by throwing a hand grenade into a market in the Old City of Arab east Jerusalem in 1992, had his term reduced from 12 years to 10 years.
Also benefitting from Wednesday’s decision were two brothers, Yehodav and Eitan Kahalani, who were sentenced to 12 years in prison for the attempted murder of a Palestinian and had their terms cut to eight years.
The impunity is so pervasive and systematic – and endemic to what is a colonial reality in Palestine – that The New York Times doesn’t notice it. But when Israelis feel aggrieved, Kershner makes sure the world hears their weeping.
As part of the US effort to restore utterly futile “peace talks” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel agreed to release 104 Palestinian prisoners in phases, with the first 26 to be freed on 13 August.
According to Addameer, the Palestinian prisoners rights group, most of those slated for release have served more than 25 years in Israeli prisons and are near the end of their sentences.
In many cases, they are the same prisoners Israel has agreed to release in previous agreements, before reneging on those commitments.
Playing up Israeli anguish Israeli media and politicians have been doing their utmost to milk this decision for propaganda purposes, highlighting how unspeakably evil the Palestinians are and what a high and terrible price this is for Israelis.
Isabel Kershner faithfully picks up on this in a New York Times article on the topic today:
Israeli newspapers highlighted the crimes committed by the prisoners, most of whom have served 20 years or more in prison for deadly attacks against Israelis. The list of prisoners, which was released after midnight, included one of the killers of Isaac Rotenberg, a Holocaust survivor who was 67 at the time of his death in 1994, and the man who killed an 84-year-old Israeli, Avraham Kinstler, with blows from an ax.
Kershner ends her article with this heartbreaking pen portrait of Israeli relatives protesting outside the High Court which was hearing petitions against the releases:
One of them was Gila Molcho, the sister of Ian Feinberg, an Israeli lawyer who was bludgeoned to death by a Palestinian man wielding an ax in Gaza in 1993 while he was working on a project there. Ms. Molcho held a framed portrait of her brother, who was 30.
“Don’t let them come home as heroes,” she said of the prisoners to be released. “We will be left holding the pictures.” Weeping, she added, “They are terrorists, not soldiers.”
Palestinians have no such opportunity Of course, it would be inhuman not to empathize with the anguish of any individual whose loved one has died violently.
But what’s most striking – and unremarked – about all this is that Israelis are, by and large, the only ones who have the opportunity to bewail the release of prisoners held for decades for killing their loved ones as some sort of great sacrifice and injustice.
Due to the systematic and near-total impunity that protects Israelis from consequences for killing or injuring Palestinians, there is just no parallel on the Palestinian side.
Going back to the creation of Israel, Palestinians have almost never seen the killers of their children receive appropriate punishment.
Notoriously, Colonel Issachar Shadmi, the brigade commander who ordered the massacre of 47 villagers at Kafr Qassem in 1956, was found guilty of a mere “administrative error” and fined one penny.
The examples of crimes where there has been a total absence of accountability and justice are simply too numerous to list, but they include the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres of thousands of Palestinians during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and more recently more than 1,400 Palestinians killed in Gaza in 2008-2009 during Operation Cast Lead.
In one particularly horrific example, on 4-5 January 2009, Israeli occupation forces herded 100 civilians into the house of Wael al-Samouni, mostly women and children, and then deliberately shelled the house:
Twenty-one family members were killed and 19 injured in the shelling of just that house. Others had been killed, injured and left to die in nearby homes. Nine of the dead in Wa’el Samouni’s house were children, the youngest a baby of six months. The dead children included Wa’el Samouni’s 14-year-old daughter, Rizqa, and 12-year-old son, Faris.
In that case, as in countless others, Israel investigated itself and – surprise! – found no wrongdoing.
Insignificant sentences It would be wrong to say that Israeli soldiers never receive sentences for crimes against Palestinians. One year ago, for instance, an Israeli soldier was handed a sentence of 45 days in prison in a plea bargain on a lesser charge that meant he avoided trial for killing Raya Abu Hajaj, 64, and her daughter Majda, 37.
The mother and daughter were shot dead in the Gaza Strip in January 2009 as they were among civilians waving a white flag and trying to flee the Israeli onslaught.
B’Tselem called for the investigation to be reopened and for the military police to “hold accountable those responsible.”
Has B’Tselem not noticed that Israeli military police operate as if their job is to prevent, not promote, justice for Palestinian victims?
The impunity goes down to the individual level. Who can forget the “Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into” Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza, “and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old.”
He was acquitted of any wrongdoing in her death by an Israeli court in 2005.
In these cases, the names of the accused are not even made public, another form of impunity for Israeli perpetrators.
Recently, I wrote about the case of Michael Gershkowitz an Israeli soldier, who received a risible two-month sentence for an horrific, unprovoked beating of a Palestinian worker that was caught on video.
And then there was the case of the Israeli police officer, Shahar Mizrahi, whose 30-month sentence in 2010, for shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian motorist caused consternation and outrage because it was considered too severe.
Israel’s top police officer and public security minister promised they would lead a campaign to convince Israel’s president to pardon Shahar.
It would be misleading to say that light sentences are the norm for Israelis who kill Palestinians. Any sentence at all is an exception.
The norm is for no serious investigation, and no charges to be brought in the first place.
Every Palestinian child knows this, including Atta Muhammad Atta Sabah, a 12-year-old boy who was shot and paralyzed by an Israeli soldier in Jalazoun refugee camp last May.
“I’m not expecting anything to happen to [the soldier who shot me],” Atta recently said.
Colonial “justice” It bears mentioning that under the 1993 Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority and security forces have no powers to arrest or bring to justice Israelis who commit crimes against Palestinians, a limitation that institutionalizes Israeli colonial “justice.” The Palestinian Authority can only arrest Palestinians.
Indeed, Israel’s main concern in negotiating the Oslo accords was creating a subservient regime that would effectively protect Israeli colonizers from any form of resistance by subjugated Palestinians, something the Palestinian Authority has done for years under the rubric of “fighting terrorism.”
Sentences reduced for Israelis convicted of killing Arabs It would be remiss not to mention that sometimes Israeli civilians do go to prison for long periods for killing Palestinians.
There is the example of Ami Popper, who was serving multiple life sentences for murdering 7 Palestinian laborers in 1990.
But an Israeli serves a life sentence for killing Palestinians under very special conditions, as Ynet reported in May on the occasion of Popper’s latest wedding:
During his time in prison, Popper became religious, got married and had three kids. In 2007, while on prison leave, Popper was involved in a car accident which left his wife and one of his sons dead. He had been driving without a license.
He has since remarried and got divorced. Sunday’s wedding is his third marriage.
Popper’s sentence was reduced from seven life terms to 40 years in a series of pardons and commutations in 1999 by Israel’s then president Ezer Weizman.
That wasn’t all. As Agence France Presse reported on 3 February 1999:
Weizman’s order reduced by four years the 15-year sentence of Yoram Skolnik, who was jailed in 1993 for shooting a bound Palestinian man who had been captured after stabbing a Jewish settler in the West Bank.
Skolnik was originally jailed for life but Weizman already commuted the sentence to 15 years. Nehemia Michbaum, who killed a Palestinian man by throwing a hand grenade into a market in the Old City of Arab east Jerusalem in 1992, had his term reduced from 12 years to 10 years.
Also benefitting from Wednesday’s decision were two brothers, Yehodav and Eitan Kahalani, who were sentenced to 12 years in prison for the attempted murder of a Palestinian and had their terms cut to eight years.
The impunity is so pervasive and systematic – and endemic to what is a colonial reality in Palestine – that The New York Times doesn’t notice it. But when Israelis feel aggrieved, Kershner makes sure the world hears their weeping.
8 aug 2013
|
|
Atta Muhammad Atta Sabah is a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who was shot by an Israeli soldier on 21 May 2013 in Jalazoun refugee camp near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank as he attempted to retrieve his school bag.
The injury left him paralyzed below the waist and damaged his liver, lungs, pancreas and spleen. Contemporaneous reports include typical Israeli army assertions that soldiers were firing at protestors throwing rocks and molotov cocktails. Disturbing disregard for children Days after the attack, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section (DCI-Palestine) stated: |
“This shooting is devastating and tragic, and unfortunately all too common,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, Accountability Program director at DCI-Palestine. “The blatant disregard that soldiers often display toward children is extremely disturbing. We demand that the Israeli authorities conduct a prompt, transparent and impartial investigation and hold the perpetrators accountable.”
In a video interview published today by DCI-Palestine, Atta and his mother tell their story. “He would go straight to school and come back, and he has an attachment to his pets, all his time was spent with his birds and pigeons. He was never interested in soldiers or clashes.”
Atta says “I’m not expecting anything to happen to [the soldier who shot me].” Israeli soldiers are almost never charged with crimes against Palestinians civilians, and, when they are, punishments are insignificant.
“No, I didn’t hear anything [from the Israelis] nor did they care about the situation,” Atta said.
Atta’s mother shares a glimpse of her own fears for the future caring for a child who is disabled and traumatized. “Sometimes he gets angry. His blood pressure goes to 205. He doesn’t really speak about what’s happening. That’s how he expresses his anger.”
Life in Jalazon refugee camp is punctuated by regular incursions by Israeli occupation soldiers who arrest youth. While Atta personally expects to walk again, his mother is less optimistic. “The hardest part is his situation at home, when he goes home.”
In a video interview published today by DCI-Palestine, Atta and his mother tell their story. “He would go straight to school and come back, and he has an attachment to his pets, all his time was spent with his birds and pigeons. He was never interested in soldiers or clashes.”
Atta says “I’m not expecting anything to happen to [the soldier who shot me].” Israeli soldiers are almost never charged with crimes against Palestinians civilians, and, when they are, punishments are insignificant.
“No, I didn’t hear anything [from the Israelis] nor did they care about the situation,” Atta said.
Atta’s mother shares a glimpse of her own fears for the future caring for a child who is disabled and traumatized. “Sometimes he gets angry. His blood pressure goes to 205. He doesn’t really speak about what’s happening. That’s how he expresses his anger.”
Life in Jalazon refugee camp is punctuated by regular incursions by Israeli occupation soldiers who arrest youth. While Atta personally expects to walk again, his mother is less optimistic. “The hardest part is his situation at home, when he goes home.”
4 aug 2013
It took the police nearly three hours to reach a Palestinian’s home in Hebron after it had been fired on. When the police arrived, they asked the victim to do their job for them.
By Yesh Din (written by Yossi Gurvitz)
Issa Amro, a resident of Hebron, is a noted activist who is often targeted for harassment by both the army and the settlers. He recently made it to the headlines in Israel (Heb) after IDF soldiers stormed his house during an Iftar dinner, choosing it as their training site. Yesh Din has already covered this phenomenon, which allows the IDF to show the Palestinians who’s boss. In Amro’s case, one suspects this harassment was anything but accidental, and was intended to intimidate an activist who gives the occupation forces a major headache.
Amro has other troubles. He is out of favor with the settlers, as he is one of the organizers of protests against the closing of Shuhada Street. Remember Baruch Goldstein’s massacre in Hebron? Following the massacre, the IDF decided that for security reasons, a main road in Palestinian Hebron must be closed. Some sort of occupation logic, I assume. A massacre took place? Make sure to punish the group which has just been massacred. That’ll be sure to deter the population which supports the murderer.
Be that as it may, several days ago, as Amro was sitting down for the Iftar dinner, there was a sudden loud noise. The guests were quick to take cover – Hebronites are well-drilled. A quick survey found a bullet casing nearby, which indicates a shooting. Amro went to the military checkpoint near his house, and spoke to the soldier there, asking him to call his captain. The soldier refused. Amro informed him his house was shot at. The soldier remained apathetic: “I don’t care, call the police.” As a common Israeli soldier, this one was unaware of his duty to defend Palestinians, including the duty to secure a crime scene.
Amro went back home, called the police, and they said they were on their way. Twenty minutes later, he called again. They were still on their way. And indeed, just 150 minutes after the second phone call, a police car moseyed up to the crime scene. The police were quick to show outstanding professionalism by asking Amro where the shot came from. Amro, sadly not a ballistic expert, reminded them this was their job. They said they’d do it.
A few minutes later, Amro joined the cops on their way to the police station in Kiryat Arba. That’s when the incident took a particularly Hebronic twist: a well-known settler and notorious felon blocked the road, informing the cops that “Issa won’t pass here.” Instead of informing the settler he isn’t going to order them around, the cops chose the path of better discretion and went down another road, which quite amused Amro.
Finally, Amro made his statement. The cops promised to return to the crime scene so as to actually examine it. So far, they haven’t. We shall patiently wait for the police to close the case without arresting any suspects. A reminder: 84 percent of cases are closed due to police negligence, due to the “unknown perpetrator clause.”
To sum things up: a house was shot up during a holiday dinner. A soldier did not know – or pretended not to know – his duty, nor did he hear the shot. A police force needed close to three hours to reach the scene. The police ask the victim to do their job for them, and later allow a settler to block their way and meekly turn to another road.
Welcome to occupied Hebron, where the rule of law crawls to die.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
By Yesh Din (written by Yossi Gurvitz)
Issa Amro, a resident of Hebron, is a noted activist who is often targeted for harassment by both the army and the settlers. He recently made it to the headlines in Israel (Heb) after IDF soldiers stormed his house during an Iftar dinner, choosing it as their training site. Yesh Din has already covered this phenomenon, which allows the IDF to show the Palestinians who’s boss. In Amro’s case, one suspects this harassment was anything but accidental, and was intended to intimidate an activist who gives the occupation forces a major headache.
Amro has other troubles. He is out of favor with the settlers, as he is one of the organizers of protests against the closing of Shuhada Street. Remember Baruch Goldstein’s massacre in Hebron? Following the massacre, the IDF decided that for security reasons, a main road in Palestinian Hebron must be closed. Some sort of occupation logic, I assume. A massacre took place? Make sure to punish the group which has just been massacred. That’ll be sure to deter the population which supports the murderer.
Be that as it may, several days ago, as Amro was sitting down for the Iftar dinner, there was a sudden loud noise. The guests were quick to take cover – Hebronites are well-drilled. A quick survey found a bullet casing nearby, which indicates a shooting. Amro went to the military checkpoint near his house, and spoke to the soldier there, asking him to call his captain. The soldier refused. Amro informed him his house was shot at. The soldier remained apathetic: “I don’t care, call the police.” As a common Israeli soldier, this one was unaware of his duty to defend Palestinians, including the duty to secure a crime scene.
Amro went back home, called the police, and they said they were on their way. Twenty minutes later, he called again. They were still on their way. And indeed, just 150 minutes after the second phone call, a police car moseyed up to the crime scene. The police were quick to show outstanding professionalism by asking Amro where the shot came from. Amro, sadly not a ballistic expert, reminded them this was their job. They said they’d do it.
A few minutes later, Amro joined the cops on their way to the police station in Kiryat Arba. That’s when the incident took a particularly Hebronic twist: a well-known settler and notorious felon blocked the road, informing the cops that “Issa won’t pass here.” Instead of informing the settler he isn’t going to order them around, the cops chose the path of better discretion and went down another road, which quite amused Amro.
Finally, Amro made his statement. The cops promised to return to the crime scene so as to actually examine it. So far, they haven’t. We shall patiently wait for the police to close the case without arresting any suspects. A reminder: 84 percent of cases are closed due to police negligence, due to the “unknown perpetrator clause.”
To sum things up: a house was shot up during a holiday dinner. A soldier did not know – or pretended not to know – his duty, nor did he hear the shot. A police force needed close to three hours to reach the scene. The police ask the victim to do their job for them, and later allow a settler to block their way and meekly turn to another road.
Welcome to occupied Hebron, where the rule of law crawls to die.
Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.
24 july 2013
Figures based on monitoring of the investigations in 938 files opened by the various units of the Samaria & Judea District Police following complaints submitted by Palestinians with Yesh Din’s assistance, show that between 2005 and 2013 just 8.5 percent of investigation files ended in the indictment of Israelis suspected of harming Palestinians and their property. An examination of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the files by the S&J District Police shows that 84 percent of the files in which a final decision has been taken were closed due to police investigation failures. In the vast majority of cases, the investigators failed to locate the offenders or to collect sufficient evidence for prosecution.
The police investigations were opened following offenses of violence; damage to property; seizure of Palestinian land; and other offenses, including shooting, stone throwing, arson, the cutting down of trees, injury to livestock, theft of crops, construction on Palestinian-owned land, threats and harassment.
The new figures are virtually identical to those reported in the past. Accordingly, the past year has not brought any improvement in the ability of the S&J District Police to investigate offenses by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property. The ongoing failure of the S&J District Police in this respect is due to systemic defects and flaws in the management of investigations, as reviewed in detail in Yesh Din’s report “A Semblance of Law” published in 2006. The report showed that over half the investigation files examined were marred by negligence, a lack of professionalism, a paucity of investigative actions, and failure to meet accepted standards for police investigations. Although these defects have been known for years, the new figures show that no meaningful action has been taken to correct the situation and improve the quality of investigations.
Noa Cohen of Yesh Din’s Research Department commented on the findings: “Despite numerous declarations of enhanced enforcement concerning attacks by Israelis on Palestinians, the figures show that in reality there has not been any change. Time after time the police fail to bring offenders to justice. The negligent investigations and low indictment rate send a clear message to offenders that the State has no interest in forcing them to end their actions. Anyone who is familiar with the situation in the Territories recognizes that Israel has abandoned its obligation to protect the Palestinian population. This is reflected in the acts and omissions of all the agencies of the State, and particularly the Police and the IDF.
The police investigations were opened following offenses of violence; damage to property; seizure of Palestinian land; and other offenses, including shooting, stone throwing, arson, the cutting down of trees, injury to livestock, theft of crops, construction on Palestinian-owned land, threats and harassment.
The new figures are virtually identical to those reported in the past. Accordingly, the past year has not brought any improvement in the ability of the S&J District Police to investigate offenses by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property. The ongoing failure of the S&J District Police in this respect is due to systemic defects and flaws in the management of investigations, as reviewed in detail in Yesh Din’s report “A Semblance of Law” published in 2006. The report showed that over half the investigation files examined were marred by negligence, a lack of professionalism, a paucity of investigative actions, and failure to meet accepted standards for police investigations. Although these defects have been known for years, the new figures show that no meaningful action has been taken to correct the situation and improve the quality of investigations.
Noa Cohen of Yesh Din’s Research Department commented on the findings: “Despite numerous declarations of enhanced enforcement concerning attacks by Israelis on Palestinians, the figures show that in reality there has not been any change. Time after time the police fail to bring offenders to justice. The negligent investigations and low indictment rate send a clear message to offenders that the State has no interest in forcing them to end their actions. Anyone who is familiar with the situation in the Territories recognizes that Israel has abandoned its obligation to protect the Palestinian population. This is reflected in the acts and omissions of all the agencies of the State, and particularly the Police and the IDF.
Yesh Din Monitoring 2005-2013
The human rights organization Yesh Din today published figures based on its monitoring of the investigations in 938 files opened by the various units of the Samaria & Judea District Police following complaints submitted by Palestinians with Yesh Din’s assistance. The updated figures show that between 2005 and 2013 just 8.5 percent of investigation files ended in the indictment of Israelis suspected of harming Palestinians and their property. An examination of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the files by the S&J District Police shows that 84 percent of the files in which a final decision has been taken were closed due to police investigation failures. In the vast majority of cases, the investigators failed to locate the offenders or to collect sufficient evidence for prosecution.
The police investigations were opened following offenses of violence; damage to property; seizure of Palestinian land; and other offenses, including shooting, stone throwing, arson, the cutting down of trees, injury to livestock, theft of crops, construction on Palestinian-owned land, threats and harassment.
The new figures are virtually identical to those reported in the past. Accordingly, the past year has not brought any improvement in the ability of the S&J District Police to investigate offenses by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property. The ongoing failure of the S&J District Police in this respect is due to systemic defects and flaws in the management of investigations, as reviewed in detail in Yesh Din’s report “A Semblance of Law” published in 2006. The report showed that over half the investigation files examined were marred by negligence, a lack of professionalism, a paucity of investigative actions, and failure to meet accepted standards for police investigations. Although these defects have been known for years, the new figures show that no meaningful action has been taken to correct the situation and improve the quality of investigations.
The human rights organization Yesh Din today published figures based on its monitoring of the investigations in 938 files opened by the various units of the Samaria & Judea District Police following complaints submitted by Palestinians with Yesh Din’s assistance. The updated figures show that between 2005 and 2013 just 8.5 percent of investigation files ended in the indictment of Israelis suspected of harming Palestinians and their property. An examination of the circumstances surrounding the closure of the files by the S&J District Police shows that 84 percent of the files in which a final decision has been taken were closed due to police investigation failures. In the vast majority of cases, the investigators failed to locate the offenders or to collect sufficient evidence for prosecution.
The police investigations were opened following offenses of violence; damage to property; seizure of Palestinian land; and other offenses, including shooting, stone throwing, arson, the cutting down of trees, injury to livestock, theft of crops, construction on Palestinian-owned land, threats and harassment.
The new figures are virtually identical to those reported in the past. Accordingly, the past year has not brought any improvement in the ability of the S&J District Police to investigate offenses by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property. The ongoing failure of the S&J District Police in this respect is due to systemic defects and flaws in the management of investigations, as reviewed in detail in Yesh Din’s report “A Semblance of Law” published in 2006. The report showed that over half the investigation files examined were marred by negligence, a lack of professionalism, a paucity of investigative actions, and failure to meet accepted standards for police investigations. Although these defects have been known for years, the new figures show that no meaningful action has been taken to correct the situation and improve the quality of investigations.
12 july 2013
Israel’s High Court of Justice on July 9, 2013, dismissed a petition calling for a ban on the Israeli military’s use of white phosphorus munitions in populated areas.
At a previous hearing, the state attorney told the court that the military would pledge not to use white phosphorus in populated areas “for the time being,” with two “very narrow exceptions” that it would not make public for unspecified security reasons. The state attorney shared information about the exceptions with the court during a hearing from which the petitioners were excluded.
In her ruling, Justice Edna Arbel accepted the state’s pledge and rejected the petition as unnecessary, and said she was “convinced” that the secret exceptions were “very limited” and that it is “doubtful if they would have any practical implications.”
The seven-paragraph ruling requires the military to notify the petitioners, including 117 Israeli citizens and human rights organizations, in the event the policy changes. The court also ordered the military to conduct a “comprehensive check” concerning its policies on the use of white phosphorus, but did not set a time limit for the check, or require that any results be made public.
“The military’s pledge to limit the use of white phosphorus is a positive step, but it shouldn’t be hedged with secret exceptions,” said Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “And Israel’s highest court missed a chance to clarify as a matter of law, not just policy, that the military shouldn’t be using airburst white phosphorus munitions in populated areas.”
The court rejected the state’s position that the court could not review the military’s selection of means of warfare, which can be a crucial element in a war crimes case, although it limited its review to “exceptional special cases,” Human Rights Watch said. The ruling urged the military to use alternatives to white phosphorus munitions “whenever possible.”
Human Rights Watch documented Israeli forces’ unlawful use of airburst white phosphorus munitions during fighting in Gaza in 2008-2009. Subsequent Israeli military investigations have held no one responsible for international humanitarian law violations regarding white phosphorus.
White phosphorus generates a dense white smoke and ignites on contact with oxygen. It is considered an incendiary rather than a chemical munition, and is not banned by international treaty. However, the use in populated areas of white phosphorus munitions, which spread burning toxic substance over large areas, violates the prohibition against attacks that cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants, Human Rights Watch said.
White phosphorus munitions are generally designed to serve as smokescreens and to illuminate targets, but they are harmful, regardless of their intended purpose. Human Rights Watch has been working to strengthen Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons by urging states parties to prohibit the use of all incendiary weapons in civilian areas, while working toward a complete ban. Israel has joined the Convention on Conventional Weapons, but has not ratified the protocol on incendiary weapons.
At a previous hearing, the state attorney told the court that the military would pledge not to use white phosphorus in populated areas “for the time being,” with two “very narrow exceptions” that it would not make public for unspecified security reasons. The state attorney shared information about the exceptions with the court during a hearing from which the petitioners were excluded.
In her ruling, Justice Edna Arbel accepted the state’s pledge and rejected the petition as unnecessary, and said she was “convinced” that the secret exceptions were “very limited” and that it is “doubtful if they would have any practical implications.”
The seven-paragraph ruling requires the military to notify the petitioners, including 117 Israeli citizens and human rights organizations, in the event the policy changes. The court also ordered the military to conduct a “comprehensive check” concerning its policies on the use of white phosphorus, but did not set a time limit for the check, or require that any results be made public.
“The military’s pledge to limit the use of white phosphorus is a positive step, but it shouldn’t be hedged with secret exceptions,” said Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “And Israel’s highest court missed a chance to clarify as a matter of law, not just policy, that the military shouldn’t be using airburst white phosphorus munitions in populated areas.”
The court rejected the state’s position that the court could not review the military’s selection of means of warfare, which can be a crucial element in a war crimes case, although it limited its review to “exceptional special cases,” Human Rights Watch said. The ruling urged the military to use alternatives to white phosphorus munitions “whenever possible.”
Human Rights Watch documented Israeli forces’ unlawful use of airburst white phosphorus munitions during fighting in Gaza in 2008-2009. Subsequent Israeli military investigations have held no one responsible for international humanitarian law violations regarding white phosphorus.
White phosphorus generates a dense white smoke and ignites on contact with oxygen. It is considered an incendiary rather than a chemical munition, and is not banned by international treaty. However, the use in populated areas of white phosphorus munitions, which spread burning toxic substance over large areas, violates the prohibition against attacks that cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants, Human Rights Watch said.
White phosphorus munitions are generally designed to serve as smokescreens and to illuminate targets, but they are harmful, regardless of their intended purpose. Human Rights Watch has been working to strengthen Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons by urging states parties to prohibit the use of all incendiary weapons in civilian areas, while working toward a complete ban. Israel has joined the Convention on Conventional Weapons, but has not ratified the protocol on incendiary weapons.
8 mar 2013
Israeli Newspaper Maariv reported Friday, that Israeli judges and courts “go easy” on Israeli perpetrators who assault Palestinians, giving them “ridiculous” sentences, which would encourage such assaults. Maariv added that with the reduced sentences given to Israeli’s who assault Palestinians, these attacks are increasing drastically, and will continue to unless deterrent actions are taken.
The newspaper recollects several incidents of reduced sentences, one of the examples is an incident that happened last august where Palestinian Jamal Joulani was attacked by three Israeli in Jerusalem, and after a settlement with the court the charge of assault was dropped, and only a charge of encouraging violence remained, which will give the assailants a reduced sentence.
In another incident in February 2011, four Israelis killed Hussam ar-Rwaidi from Jerusalem, murder charges were dropped, and the murderer was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
The newspaper recollects several incidents of reduced sentences, one of the examples is an incident that happened last august where Palestinian Jamal Joulani was attacked by three Israeli in Jerusalem, and after a settlement with the court the charge of assault was dropped, and only a charge of encouraging violence remained, which will give the assailants a reduced sentence.
In another incident in February 2011, four Israelis killed Hussam ar-Rwaidi from Jerusalem, murder charges were dropped, and the murderer was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
22 feb 2013
Palestinian human rights activists have launched a judicial battle against the Israeli state, to stop its evasion of compensating the families of Palestinian victims killed by its soldiers.
The Knesset has approved, on the 23rd of last July, Civil Damages (State Liability) Law amendment No. 8, which denies Palestinians the right to receive compensations for damage caused by Israeli security forces. It applies under all circumstances.
The Israeli Southern Central Court in Be’er Sheva dismissed, on Thursday the 7th of February 2013, three civil claims cases brought before it by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). These cases concerned three separate incidents involving the killing of 14 Palestinian civilians and wounding of 24 others during the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip, ‘Operation Cast Lead’, in 2008-2009
Amendment No. 8 exempts the State of Israel from any liability arising from damage caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a “combat action” or a “military operation”
Raji Sourani, Director of PCHR, said that such tactics employed by the Israeli judiciary deny Palestinian victims the right to access justice and the right to an effective remedy with respect to both civil and criminal cases.
He asserted that such measures very strongly indicate Israel’s unwillingness to fulfil its legal obligations towards the victims of its military operations through its domestic mechanisms.
Sourani told Quds Press Agency that recourse to international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, is essential for achieving justice and accountability for Palestinian victims, thereby tackling Israeli impunity and ensuring respect for the rights of Palestinians in the future.
Israel classifies the entire occupied Palestinian territory as a ‘conflict zone’ and, since 2007, Israel has prevented Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip – whether victims, witnesses, or their lawyers – from travelling to appear before Israeli courts. As a result, the courts have dismissed many cases under the pretext of the complainants and witnesses not being present during the proceedings.
Amendment no. 8 directly contravenes norms of customary international law, which establish that a State (in this instance Israel) is responsible for all acts committed by persons who are operating as part of its armed forces.
Moreover, as a High Contracting Party to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel cannot be absolved from any liability it incurs in respect of grave breaches or serious violations, which are committed against the civilian population during military operations.
Fayez Salha, a Palestinian citizen whose wife, four children and sister-in-law were killed as Israeli forces bombed his home in 2009, has sued the occupation demanding financial compensation, but the Court decided to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and fined the plaintiffs 20000 shekels.
Fayez said he is planning to go to the Palestinian Presidency to demand it to defend his case, demanding the PA President to take it "seriously".
He has also threatened to escalate the judicial procedures, expressing surprise at the international community's silence regarding such Israeli measures.
For his part; Issam Younis, Director of Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, stressed on the liability of the international community, especially the Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Knesset has approved, on the 23rd of last July, Civil Damages (State Liability) Law amendment No. 8, which denies Palestinians the right to receive compensations for damage caused by Israeli security forces. It applies under all circumstances.
The Israeli Southern Central Court in Be’er Sheva dismissed, on Thursday the 7th of February 2013, three civil claims cases brought before it by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). These cases concerned three separate incidents involving the killing of 14 Palestinian civilians and wounding of 24 others during the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip, ‘Operation Cast Lead’, in 2008-2009
Amendment No. 8 exempts the State of Israel from any liability arising from damage caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a “combat action” or a “military operation”
Raji Sourani, Director of PCHR, said that such tactics employed by the Israeli judiciary deny Palestinian victims the right to access justice and the right to an effective remedy with respect to both civil and criminal cases.
He asserted that such measures very strongly indicate Israel’s unwillingness to fulfil its legal obligations towards the victims of its military operations through its domestic mechanisms.
Sourani told Quds Press Agency that recourse to international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, is essential for achieving justice and accountability for Palestinian victims, thereby tackling Israeli impunity and ensuring respect for the rights of Palestinians in the future.
Israel classifies the entire occupied Palestinian territory as a ‘conflict zone’ and, since 2007, Israel has prevented Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip – whether victims, witnesses, or their lawyers – from travelling to appear before Israeli courts. As a result, the courts have dismissed many cases under the pretext of the complainants and witnesses not being present during the proceedings.
Amendment no. 8 directly contravenes norms of customary international law, which establish that a State (in this instance Israel) is responsible for all acts committed by persons who are operating as part of its armed forces.
Moreover, as a High Contracting Party to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel cannot be absolved from any liability it incurs in respect of grave breaches or serious violations, which are committed against the civilian population during military operations.
Fayez Salha, a Palestinian citizen whose wife, four children and sister-in-law were killed as Israeli forces bombed his home in 2009, has sued the occupation demanding financial compensation, but the Court decided to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and fined the plaintiffs 20000 shekels.
Fayez said he is planning to go to the Palestinian Presidency to demand it to defend his case, demanding the PA President to take it "seriously".
He has also threatened to escalate the judicial procedures, expressing surprise at the international community's silence regarding such Israeli measures.
For his part; Issam Younis, Director of Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, stressed on the liability of the international community, especially the Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
4 feb 2013
Palestinians bid farewell to Samir Awad during his funeral in the West Bank village of Budrus, 15 January.
The Israeli legal advocacy group Yesh Din has found that out of 103 investigations opened in 2012 into alleged offenses committed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories against Palestinians and their property, not a single one has so far resulted in any charges.
From 2009-2011, Yesh Din says in its latest report, just 2.62 percent of investigations led to charges.
The figure from 2012 represents a deterioration in the already shocking lack of justice for Palestinians living under Israeli military tyranny.
From 2005-11, Yesh Din found previously, [PDF] 94 percent of criminal investigations launched by the Israeli army’s criminal investigation division against soldiers suspected of criminal violent activity against Palestinians and their property were closed without any indictments.
Yesh Din has also said that in the rare cases where charges are filed and convictions obtained, punishments are usually no more than a slap on the wrist.
Killing with impunity continues So far in 2013, at least five Palestinians have been shot dead by Israeli occupation forces including Samir Awad, 16, in the village of Budrus, whom witnesses say was executed in an Israeli army ambush.
On 23 January, Lubna Hanash, a young Palestinian woman and university student was shot dead by Israeli occupation forces as she walked with a friend, near Arroub refugee camp near Bethlehem.
That same day, Salih al-Amarin, 15, died of gunshot wounds inflicted by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem the previous week.
And in December, Muhammad al-Salaymeh, a Hebron teen, was shot dead on his 17th birthday in unexplained circumstances. Claims by the Israeli soldier who shot him that Muhammad had brandished a weapon and taken another soldier hostage, were proven false by video of the incident.
Occupier’s victims are always guilty While no credible investigations, let alone accountability, are expected in any of these cases, the occupation regime’s sick joke of a “justice” system continues its harsh crackdown on its victims.
In 2011, Haaretz revealed that almost 100 percent (99.74 percent to be precise) of cases against Palestinians brought before Israel’s kangaroo “military courts” – where the prosecutors and judges are officers of the occupation army – result in convictions.
This week Haaretz revealed that Israeli occupation “police” in Jerusalem were cracking down even harder on victims of the occupation in an attempt to break their resistance to home demolitions to make way for more Jewish-only colonial settlements.
The Israeli legal advocacy group Yesh Din has found that out of 103 investigations opened in 2012 into alleged offenses committed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories against Palestinians and their property, not a single one has so far resulted in any charges.
From 2009-2011, Yesh Din says in its latest report, just 2.62 percent of investigations led to charges.
The figure from 2012 represents a deterioration in the already shocking lack of justice for Palestinians living under Israeli military tyranny.
From 2005-11, Yesh Din found previously, [PDF] 94 percent of criminal investigations launched by the Israeli army’s criminal investigation division against soldiers suspected of criminal violent activity against Palestinians and their property were closed without any indictments.
Yesh Din has also said that in the rare cases where charges are filed and convictions obtained, punishments are usually no more than a slap on the wrist.
Killing with impunity continues So far in 2013, at least five Palestinians have been shot dead by Israeli occupation forces including Samir Awad, 16, in the village of Budrus, whom witnesses say was executed in an Israeli army ambush.
On 23 January, Lubna Hanash, a young Palestinian woman and university student was shot dead by Israeli occupation forces as she walked with a friend, near Arroub refugee camp near Bethlehem.
That same day, Salih al-Amarin, 15, died of gunshot wounds inflicted by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem the previous week.
And in December, Muhammad al-Salaymeh, a Hebron teen, was shot dead on his 17th birthday in unexplained circumstances. Claims by the Israeli soldier who shot him that Muhammad had brandished a weapon and taken another soldier hostage, were proven false by video of the incident.
Occupier’s victims are always guilty While no credible investigations, let alone accountability, are expected in any of these cases, the occupation regime’s sick joke of a “justice” system continues its harsh crackdown on its victims.
In 2011, Haaretz revealed that almost 100 percent (99.74 percent to be precise) of cases against Palestinians brought before Israel’s kangaroo “military courts” – where the prosecutors and judges are officers of the occupation army – result in convictions.
This week Haaretz revealed that Israeli occupation “police” in Jerusalem were cracking down even harder on victims of the occupation in an attempt to break their resistance to home demolitions to make way for more Jewish-only colonial settlements.
Page: 2 - 1
