Salem

Translation: Marganit W.

Cross-examination of police investigator in the Jamal Tirawi hearing [see earlier reports: Salem 24.1.10 and 17.2.10]

"The Interpreter is Translating for You"

"If you and Jamal are not interested, I can order you out. The interpreter is translating for your benefit, the others don't need it." Thus the judge scolded the Tirawi brothers, who spent the first half of the day conversing on both sides of the court. In their defense, I can testify that I, too, had a hard time keeping my eyes open during the first interrogation. Captain Faraj presented a bunch of police statements and repeated the same questions again and again: Describe for the court the atmosphere during the interrogation. What language was used? Etc. During the second phase he asked: Here it says X, but in court the witness said Y, what can you tell us about it? So the investigator said that the witness lied in court and his testimony was baseless, that the statement was obtained, written and signed of his own volition etc. It is interesting to note that Arabs are liars by definition UNTIL they incriminate other Arabs, then every word is written in stone and is the gospel truth.

Check and mate, or maybe not

Defense Attorney Merav Houri demanded the court be presented with a corpse before deciding who murdered whom (maybe) . For now this is only a rumor, an allegation - the court does not recognize the death certificate issued by the Authority. If it does, the court will have to recognize other documents of the Palestinian Authority, something that the court is reluctant to do. Thus, the only proof of the murder of the man - a collaborator -  that Tirawi is accused of ordering the murder, is testimony by the father of Muayed Mansour, Witness No. 26, who allegedly buried him. The father claims that he is threatened by the Tirawi family and therefore refuses to testify in court: "They threatened that if I expose what happened to my son and claim he is innocent, they'll burn my house down and will hurt my daughters." This is from his interrogation at Hawara. He was subpoenaed but did not show up, possibly because the prosecution knows it cannot protect him. Check and mate? Apparently not. We saw how pliable the rules are, and in this case, too, there will be a way to bend them a little. At any rate, at this stage, the court ordered both sides to present their arguments in writing, based on Paragraph 10 a and b, which deals with the refusal of a witness to testify, or when a witness cannot be located or is dissuaded from testifying.

A New Interpreter, a Redhead

In the long interval foisted on us, I was impressed by his Arabic and by how fast he familiarized himself with the procedure. "I'm an Arab," he explained. This is the new interpreter, a Christian Evangelist, whose parents are ‘internal refugees' from Nazareth. He grew up in Kiryat Eliezer and studied at the Carmelit school. He volunteered to serve in the army because he believes in the continued existence of the Jewish state. He told me that there are 420 people like him every year. Israeli Arabs, he claims, feel that, compared to other countries in the Middle East, they are better off. After half the Palestinian population was evicted in 1948, and wealthy Palestinians who had connections left [like many Jews, let me add], after the Druze and the Beduins were co-opted by Israel, those who stayed are more Zionist than I am. So maybe we can now retire the "demographic danger" argument?

The Price of Being Late

At my left, the Druze prosecutor is having a heated discussion with the defendant's brother - in Arabic, of course, what else? At my right, Atty. Houri is talking with the defendant - in Arabic, of course. I am in the middle, the only Jew in the area, who never learned enough Arabic to follow the conversation. As usual, the judges were late coming from lunch, but the order to bring in the defendant and his family was duly carried out. It soon became apparent to the dutiful soldiers that there was something surreal about that picture which disproved the accepted narrative about security risk. Thus, they requested an order to take the Palestinians (who are neither Druze, Beduin or Evangelical volunteers) out of the court. Their request was presumably granted. Needless to say, while they were arranging this, there was no hint of weapon in the court.

Mufa'jaa

"You are not conducting an independent investigation: the GSS order the arrests and interrogate before you. You're not the first to get an admission from the accused. You merely rewrite what the GSS wrote, you don't investigate." Thus began the cross-examination by the defense attorney. It was finally getting interesting: the private conversations stopped and I woke up. I will cite two examples to illustrate the attorney's point. Both are taken from the investigation focusing on the main charge against Jamal Tirawi - sending a suicide bomber to a café in Tel Aviv in 2002.

Surprise No. 1 - Herzl said

"In regards to Abu Leil's statement, you insist that he was staying at Rawash's house 4 days before he was arrested with the defendant. He claims that he said that there were 4 more people there, not 4 days. Why do you insist? Maybe the question was "Were you?" But you wrote down "You stayed" and this is the source of the mistake? Why should Abu Leil recant his statement at this point? The explanation, sir, is that in the GSS memorandum, ‘Herzl' wrote: "slept 4 days at Rawash's" and this is how it trickled down to the police investigation. Let me tell you, that the same memo alleges that Abu Leil testified that they had 4 guns, and with surprising coordination your statement makes the same claim. How come he made the same mistake in your report and in that of the GSS? We have a report by the soldiers who seized the weapons which included: 3 guns and 1tear gas grenade , 2 Belgian guns, 1 Jericho plus a gun belonging to Firas.

Surprise No. 2

"You were assigned the investigation of three men involved in this case at a certain time: Riad Abu Saris, Fadi Fahmi Bakri and Sirhan Alan. Abu Sris testified that during a ride with the suicide bomber, Ala and Jamal Tirawi called the suicide bomber's cell phone to get an update. Sirhan Alan said in his interrogation that Abu Saris told him that he had kept the cell phone of the suicide bomber as a souvenir. Did you request the phone to check the incoming calls?" Evidently, it was convenient to presume that the phone perished with the bomber, but investigations have yielded that this may not be the case; one of the passengers in the car said he had kept the "incriminating"(?) phone. This line of investigation was lost in the maze of police "investigation" which is a re-writing of the GSS memo. Apparently, Herzl did not say anything about this.

Dessert

"Perhaps you can give me an answer that no police officer to date has been able to supply," Atty. Houri challenged the witness. "Given the identification of the statement taken by the police with the memos on which the police bases its investigation, who needs the police?"

Her Honor Judge Dalya Kauffman told Atty. Houri that she'd be happy to answer her. Maybe if we behave, we can hear it too.

Continuation of the Defense 28.2.10

I had to leave the court a little after 4, before the conclusion of the hearing. I wish I could have stayed, it was so intriguing.

Last Sunday, February 28, Rachel H. and I attended the session when the defense continued its argument in Jamal's case. We were not allowed to remain in the courtroom, as GSS men were being interrogated in camera. Atty. Houri told me the following day on the phone, that on 14.3.10 the hearing would be behind closed doors until the interrogation of the GSS investigator would be over.

Jamal Tirawi will probably appear as a witness on 21.3.10

Translation: Marganit W.

Testimony of 3 witnesses for the prosecution in the case of Jamal Tirawi

(See earlier report of this case: Salem 24.1.10)

Judges: Major Dalia Kaufman, Lieutenant Eyal Nun, Lieutenant Yair Zadok

Defense: Haim Yitzhaki from Avidgor Feldman law office

Prosecutor: Captain Camil Faraj

Unfortunately, there is not much to report about the "legal procedure" - everything has been said before. The lawyer from Avigdor Feldman's law office did not do his homework and the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was an insult to the intelligence (let me hasten to add that I realize that it is easy to criticize and that it is not I who have to do this impossible job of defending suspects who do not enjoy the presumption of innocence; I am also aware of the fact that one human rights lawyer left the country to live abroad, and that the others, when they are not collaborators, are exhausted and worn out... still...). All I have to say in this respect is that, if even a respectable law firm like this one doesn't bother to prepare a decent defense for suspects who had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of the military legal system, then there should not be any doubt in our minds that the system won. Still, I'd like to relate a few stories that took place on the margins of the main event.

Security problems

In an earlier hearing in the Tirawi case (24.1.10) I was pleasantly surprised to see that 4 members of his family were allowed to be present at the hearing. Moreover, until the arrival of the judges, the visitors were allowed to talk to the defendant (with 15 meters separating them, but who's counting). Since his abduction, on 29.5.07, Jamal Tirawi has not met his wife, except in court. Only his son is allowed to visit him. Today, his wife and son were in court, as well as his father's brother. His own brother - who attended the previous hearing - was not allowed in. Why? "Security problems...procedure... risk". Note that at the time when all four were admitted, there was only one guard in the courtroom - and he too occasionally left the room, as most Druze personnel were on leave for Nabi Hadr holiday. On a related issue, today there were Junior Prison Guard officers in the court. One of them wondered aloud why the defendant was allowed to converse with his family. And "old hand," their mentor, explained: this prisoner has such high status...." He did not elaborate. These guys and their rules are indeed flexible.

If you want to talk, not here

3 witnesses testified - two are investigators who interrogated Tirawi's incriminators, and one was an incriminator himself (who claimed that he never mentioned Tirawi in his interrogation). One of the witnesses wore a knitted kippa (Sgt. Maj. Nahum Babkoff of the Yarkon Interrogations Division), the other was Druze (Sgt.-Maj. Aataf Awda) and the third a Palestinian, (Fadi Fahmi, Bakri).

Most of the time, Justice Kaufman was busy reprimanding Mrs. Tirawi ("If you want to talk, not here!") and dictating to the typists what to write. When the man from Nablus testified, she added detailed descriptions of his body language: "He lowered his eyes, he looked sideways, he rolled his eyes, he smiled, he didn't smile... type, type." Apparently, he was the only witness who used body language, and it certainly needed recording, because the protocol reflects the truth and nothing but the truth.

Even an animal cannot live 90 days underground

On the other hand, things that the Palestinian witness said and should have made everybody sit bolt upright, went unmarked. The judge did not instruct the typist to put them down, and the defense did not rush to demand clarification. In my opinion, what was said there should be reported to the Committee Against Torture.

A few words about the witness: he lives in Nablus and has had a quarrel with the Tirawi family (since Jamal Tirawi, acting as a officer of the PA, released the killer of his uncle Ahmad Tabuk). Because of this family feud, the witness moved out of Nablus. He was sentenced to 4 years in jail for charges that were not mentioned in this hearing. However, he was acquitted of the charge of participating in a bombing in Tel Aviv, which is the most serious charge against Jamal Tirawi. He is supposed to be released in 40 days (which did not match the count of 4 years since his arrest on 7.6.06, but this is what I heard him say).

In his testimony he said that he had been "90 days underground" adding, "even an animal cannot live underground for 90 days." The police plants - A.L. Safir - pretended to be members of the Tanzim organization. At least in one interrogation, GSS interrogators "Herzl" and "Yair" were masked. One of them pretended to be a Fatah member and the other a member of the Islamic Jihad. When they took off their masks and called him a liar, he threw a fit and hit his head against the wall, necessitating intervention to prevent him from hurting himself. He claims that they later threatened to take him back to the interrogation room, whereupon he said, "You want him to be there, fine, he was there." I tend to believe him. (Grammar too is a victim of the military justice system...)

Jamal and I were on time

I wrote the sentence "The hearing scheduled for 9:30 - due to its anticipated length - began as usual only at 10:45" even before I left. I decided to open a file and write those annoying details that you are reading right now, thus saving time. As it turned out, I had to make no changes, even though in the previous hearing (31.1.10) the judge and the attorney spent 20 minutes exchanging humorous comments about traffic between Tel Aviv and the court (it is certainly more amusing than discussing the harsh conditions of detention and interrogation that the witness complains about). When they were done exchanging pleasantries, it was decided that the hearing would start at 9:30 - despite the difficulty this posed for the Tel Aviv attorney - in order to hear all 3 witness in one session. Well, Jamal and I got there together, shortly after 9:00 - we were the only ones to be on time. Then, since it was such a long, grueling day, the judges took a break. "Until One, not a second later," said the Her Honor. I lounged in the sun, knowing that I had plenty of time. In front of me I saw a black clad defense attorney trying to shoo two Vanessa Atalanta butterflies that tried to settle on him. What were the butterflies looking for in this setting anyway? The trial resumed around 2 o'clock. Time too is flexible here.

I proceed according to the memorandum.

In the three hearings I attended concerning this case, I had opportunity to hear first hand how investigators describe the interrogation, and second hand how they talk about the detainees. The picture emerging is of a thick spider web that nobody in his right mind would attempt to unravel. This is how it works: The army kidnaps a person in the Occupied Territories and hands him over to the GSS for interrogation, under conditions we are not sufficiently aware of. At the end of the investigation (which sometimes lasts 3 months), the suspect is then handed over to the police, which interrogate him on the basis of the info received from the GSS. In other words, the police already know what the suspect is supposed to confess to. In the majority of cases, this is where it stops. The suspect signs a revised charge sheet, often on his attorney's advice, thus saving the court time and the state expenses (and generating income from the fine), as well as saving the accused himself some jail time and legal hassle. The problem is with the minority of detainees who deny the allegations. These are subsequently ensnared in the GSS and police web, which is bolstered by incriminations of other detainees as well as by a pack of police plants who share a cell with the suspect and later "substantiate" the GSS version. The end result is a thick tissue of lies, contradictions and coercions ("He said that you said that they said that you were there"), that no one can possibly disentangle. Eventually - if the suspect insists on rejecting the charge sheet and no other suspect has mentioned his name, and the police plants can't extract a confession - he can always be put under ‘administrative detention'. And so the question remains: who needs this circus? For there, truth is a totally pliable value.

Edna Canetti is cute and Tirawi will get a life sentence

When the first shift typist saw my badge she volunteered that "Edna Canetti is cute." The second shift typist opined that Jamal Tirawi would get a life sentence. I cannot comment on the first pronouncement - though I have seen several Big Brothers in my life - but I am not familiar with the Israeli Big Brother TV reality show. The second pronouncement, however, is the most solid statement I heard so far in this entire "legal proceeding." While the GSS ‘laundry' keeps emitting hot air, drivel and evil spirit, the savvy typist knows the score. At all events, the two of us are eagerly waiting for Sunday, 21.2.10, when Jamal Tirawi will testify at the opening of his defense.

Translation: Marganit W.

Court of Appeals 

Judges: Major Dalya Kaufmann,  Sgt.-Major  Eyal Nun, Sgt.Maj. Yair Zadok

Prosecutor: Captain Kamil Faraj

Defense: Atty. Haim Yitzhaki (Avigdor Feldman's law firm)

Courtroom 3

I went to the Salem court at the request of the Jerusalem group, as a follow-up on the case of Ibrahim Halil Srour from Ni'lin, who was supposed to be transferred from Ofer to Salem. But upon arrival I found that the order had been cancelled. Neither his attorneys nor we were apprised of the change.

At the gate I am told by the guard that today is a Druze holiday (Prophet Al-Khidr Day). The guard who usually lets me in is on holiday, so I need to check with someone else. As soon as I mention MachsomWatch, all faces light up. "Friend of Edna?" they ask. Lucky for me, I was not part of the debate when she joined "Big Brother". Now I bask in celebrity and before I am fully aware of what's going on, I am making my way to the courtroom accompanied by Dahamshe and his son. Thus I became a witness to the legal saga of Jamal Tirawi who, as it turned out, is a real celebrity.

Let me recap the case for those who, like me, forgot the details. Before his abduction, together with 4 other Palestinians, from Balata Refugee Camp, on May 29, 2007, Tirawi was a member of parliament and spokesman of the Fatah faction in the Palestinian Legislature. His brother, Tawfiq Tirawi, chief intelligence officer in the territories, was one of Arafat's lieutenants, and today, following the last Fatah elections, he has a central position in the party.

On August 15, 2007 Jamal Tirawi was charged with 17 counts, including sending a suicide bomber to "Coffee-shop" on Allenby St. in Tel Aviv (five years earlier, in March 2002). He is also suspected of being a commander of Al-Aqsa Brigade (the military arm of Fatah) and the mastermind of suicide attacks following the massacre at Beit-Hanun, as well as of shooting at Israelis during the Second Intifada.

The indictment is based on testimonies by incriminators and police plants. One of them, Firas Ri'an, was abducted with him from Balata. Another one, Riad Abu Sris, was arrested for "illegally entering Israel," In his interrogation he confessed to transporting the suicide bomber from Kfar-Kassem to Petah-Tikwa in 2002. He claimed to have done so under instruction from Tirawi. Another incriminator whose name was mentioned in the hearing is Muhammad Abu Tubo.

     As soon as I entered Courtroom 3 (having looked in vain for Ibrahim Srour in the courts and offices), it was clear that matters were different today and the hearing was of a different kind of detainee. First, the usual gray and khaki uniforms were absent, due to the Druze holiday, so there was less noise and fewer disturbances (without, however, reduced "security").  What was more noteworthy, however, was the figure in the dock - he was obviously ‘first league'. Although he was in prison uniform, the defendant looked like a person of importance. Underneath the prison's shirt he was wearing a black garb that looked new and neat. He was surrounded by four family members [among them his brother Fawzi Tirawi] - twice the allowed number - who spoke with him freely for half an hour until the main actors arrived: judges, interpreter, and typist. The chief interpreter did the translation.

I assume that his other guests were his son (about 6 years old), his wife and another couple. Everyone walking into the room greeted him or shook his hand; some attorneys kissed him.

The defense attorneys came in, obviously from a Tel Aviv firm [I later found they were from Avigdor Feldman law firm]. What was unusual for Salem was that the defense actually did its job. But on the whole it was a dialog of the deaf. The judge had to "interpret" the defense's questions for the testifying investigators, not because they don't speak Hebrew, but because they never questioned the methods of interrogation: indictment based on incriminators and police plants, nor did it occur to them that detainees are often threatened and are fed false statements. These techniques are all routinely practiced by interrogators, and they never question them.

If I understand correctly, the defense tried to undermine the testimonies of incriminators and police plants by exposing the defects of such methods of interrogation. Two witnesses testified, both investigators who interrogated Tirawi's incriminators, using the familiar methods. There was nothing new in the criticism voiced in court, but it was refreshing to hear it in this context.

Two investigators testified about three detainees who had incriminated Tirawi: Raid Abu Sris, Muhammad Abu Tubo and Firas Rian. All three recanted the statements they had signed, claiming they were not true.

The Prosecutor claimed that the investigators followed protocol: checked the detainee's medical condition, spoke to him in his language, allowed him to write his statement and the questions and answers in Arabic and made him sign each page. All in the pursuit of truth, and all done out of the detainee's free will. The cross examination by the Tel Aviv attorney painted another picture, but rest assured, nobody except us will pay any attention.

Rais Abu Sris

The defense reminded the court that when Abu Rais testified in court he claimed that when he had given Tirawi's name to the interrogators he was in a confused state of mind and did not know what he was saying. In his cross-examination the attorney made two claims: the man was known as a user of Ecstasy, Marijuana, pot and alcohol. He was interrogated only on the forth day of his detention (he was arrested on Aug. 16 and brought to the interrogation on Aug. 20, 2006) because he was high as a kite and during the interrogation was in withdrawal. The second claim was that Tirawi had threatened him, but the moment the interrogator heard Tirawi's name, he stopped asking him relevant questions and led him to incriminate Tirawi, which was apparently his objective. Thus, he had a chance to avenge someone who had threatened him. The defense stated that no true statement could be extracted from the testimony of that witness for the prosecution.

Abu Sris was arrested on 16.8.07 on a charge of staying illegally in Israel. On 10.5.07 he was convicted of transporting the suicide bomber who blew up a café in Tel Aviv in March 2002. Abu Sris's conviction could possibly be challenged, just like Tirawai's, but he is not a "preferential" detainee, only a common resident of the Occupied Territories who worked in Israel and was addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Muhamad Abu Tubo

He testified that when asked about Tirawi by his interrogator he said only that he was working for the Authority. "The interrogator told me everything," he said about his statement. The defense stated that there was no memorandum of an earlier statement, which means that police plants were used. "You didn't conduct a 4-page interrogation without anything to base it on," he told the investigator.

Firas Rian

He was arrested with Jamal Tirawi.  In this case, too, two arguments were made which put in question the validity of an indictment that relies on incriminators. The first argument was that the incriminator wanted to recant his statement, but the interrogator threatened to "return him to jail for 90 days, to the GSS and to suffering," even though during the interrogation he urged him to sign the statement assuring him that in court he could say whatever he wanted. In his second argument, the defense compared the memorandum of Rian's interrogation of 24.6.07 to a statement based on the detainee's interrogation on 26.6.07 (two days later). These are long, almost identical texts that include a list of ten names; each name is followed by age, residence, marital statue, profession etc, all exactly in the same order. In response to the defense's question, the investigator stated that he did not read the memorandum to the detainee, i.e., he didn't dictate the statement to him. The defense did not look convinced.

Avigdor Feldman's law firm will appeal to the High Court of Justice since the Military Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to disclose additional evidence by another witnesses in Tirawi's trial. At the end of the session, the prosecution requested not to interrogate that witness until the defense obtains an interim staying order or until the High Court intervenes.

The court -  Chief justice and two judges - decided to retain the date of the next interrogation  - 31.1.10 - unless an order is issued - and hold the hearing on the following Wednesday, 3.2.10. If the decision is to allow the defense to see the material, the Chief justice promised that the court would not undermine the defendant's defense. But, she added, we all know that there is very slim chance that the High Court of Justice would intervene.

Throughout the session, Tirawi behaved as if the proceeding did not concern him. He was engaged in conversation with his visitors, using hand gestures and lip reading. There were no gray and khaki uniforms to block their communication.

Translation: Marganit W.

Third Remand Extension of Muhammad Othman Azat Mustafa, ID 901095380

Judge: Lieut. -Colonel Eliyahu Nimni
Investigator: Major Lutuf Mar'i
Defense: Atty. Mahmud Hassan

Background
Due to the general disorder reigning at the Shomron [Salem] Military Court these days, many who should have been in court were late, and the judge, after having shown up, kept coming and going. The detainee, however, was already there, the defense was present and the detainee's father was sitting on the bench reserved for families of the suspects. This turned out to be a boon, allowing attorney and client to talk at length, undisturbed, (comparatively speaking). Father and son communicated with hand gestures and the spectators exchanged views.
The father - bearded, gaunt, and ashen, with big eyes - sat in his corner crying. Atty. Hassan walked over and gave him a big hug. Two representatives of Pax Christi, whom I had met at the gate, told me that they had visited the family at Jayyous the day before. In the meantime the attorney caught up with his client about what had transpired since their last encounter. He later used this information during the hearing.
When he tried to give his client a glass of water, three guards rushed to stop him. Apparently, this is forbidden.

Starting Point
The defense's position is that Muhammad Othman's detention is unwarranted, thus the entire investigation is not aimed at obtaining information but at punishing him. This is what he said in court. The hearing opened with his objection to the police's request for 23-day remand extension for further investigation. This was the first time I heard a defense attorney exposing the legal system's failure to defend a client.

The Hearing - The Case for the Defense
The hearing finally began at 11 AM and it lasted about an hour, which is inordinately long for such discussions that usually end within ten minutes.
Attorney Hassan interrogated the investigator about the prosecution of the case, offering his own interpretation, based, no doubt, on what he heard from his client.
For instance, he claimed that on October 15, his client was tied to a chair and was under investigation
for 11 hours. In response, the investigator said that that day yielded a five-page testimony (included in the confidential material handed to the judge). The attorney countered that either parts of the testimony were not recorded because they did not correspond to what the interrogator's wanted to hear, or the suspect was tied to a chair for 11 hours as a form of punishment, not investigation. To corroborate his claim the attorney said that his client had fallen asleep in his chair and water was poured on him to awaken him.
The investigator claimed he knew nothing about this.
At any rate, the attorney insisted, this procedure is prohibited. Similarly, the court had struck down another prohibited method of intimidation, threatening to hurt the suspect's sister. Furthermore, all this time, Othman had been kept in solitary confinement.
The attorney reiterated his contention that the investigation had yielded no proof against his client and it was merely going around in circles. He wanted to know, why no police statement had been obtained from his client, even though he was arrested on Sept. 22.
The last hearing gave the investigator 12 additional days to complete the investigation.
The court had stated then that there was no progress, no specific allegations, no outside corroboration or additional suspects. The investigators had only his client's words and they kept asking him the same questions.
Moreover, the attorney said, his client cooperated with the interrogators, answering all their questions. He is 33 years old, with no prior record, and whatever he did, even if it is not to the GSS liking, was still legal.
As for the present charge - that he allegedly met a Hizbullah agent in Jordan, thus implying that he gave aid and comfort to that organization - the accused admitted that he had met someone in Jordan who gave him posters against the separation fence.
In sum, the attorney stated that there was no warrant to keep his client in custody. He has no criminal record, his place of residence is known, and he has a steady job and is a student. He should be released on bail since he poses no risk. His acts were perfectly legal.

The Case for the Investigation
The investigator was not very knowledgeable about the case. Whenever asked a question, he consulted his file at length. His answers were replete with "I don't know," " it's confidential," "I wasn't there," ask The GSS,"
"danger to security in the region," etc. He stated that further custody is mandated because release would vitiate the investigation and lead to security risk and flight from justice. This he recited without hesitation.
He also insisted that the suspect was deliberately lying.
The defense attorney, in his summation, wondered how, with such flimsy command of the case and its findings, the investigator could be so sure of himself.

The judge's statement
The judge pronounced the detainee's name as if hearing it for the first time. Apparently, the reverberation of this case around the world has not penetrated the walls of Salem Military Court.
After perusing the confidential file for a long time, the judge moved to extend the remand by 11 days -
until 29.10.09 - because there had been some breakthrough in the investigation, and there was danger to security in the region.
Well, who can blame the judge? From the point of view of the occupation machine, there is nothing more dangerous than a Palestinian who opposes violence and protests the separation fence by peaceful means. This is particularly true of the fence in Jayyous, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the fence is disproportionate and that its route needs to be changed.
The state has been ignoring the Supreme Court decision for years.

The defense appealed the remand extension. The appeal will be heard on Thursday, 22.10.09 at 9:30 at Ofer.

Muhammad Othman was released on 13.1.10 after having been detained in administrative detention from 23.11.09.  A press release published by the organisation Addameer (Prisoners' Support and Human Rights) contains Muhammad Othman's background:

Mohammad Othman, a youth coordinator with the Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall), was released after 113 days in Israeli detention without charge or trial. Mohammad, 34, was arrested by Israeli soldiers on 22 September 2009 at the Allenby Border Crossing as he returned home to the West Bank from an advocacy tour in Norway. On 22 November, after 61 days of physically and psychologically exhausting interrogation, a military court judge ordered the end to Mohammad's interrogation. The next day, however, Mohammad was placed under administrative detention. Mohammad's administrative detention was renewed for a one month period on 22 December, but was later shortened by ten days by a military judge in the Court of Administrative Detainees. Although administrative detention is legally permissible only in emergency situations, threatening the "security of the state," and not as substitute for prosecution where there is no evidence to obtain a conviction, the military judge reduced Mohammad's detention order on the grounds that there had been no serious developments in the investigation into his case. Addameer and Stop the Wall contend that Mohammad's administrative detention was clearly arbitrary and based on impermissible grounds, in severe derogation from Israel's obligations under law.

Translation: Marganit W.

Reminder Hearing

Get Up, Sit Down

On Tuesday August 17, I had plenty of time to look at the wall over the judge's empty seat at the military courtroom Nr. 1 in Salem. It was 10:35 when His Honor arrived and we got up, then he sat down (and so did we), under the three emblems decorating the wall: the scales of justice entwined with an olive branch (no inscription), the Menorah flanked by olive branches over the word "Israel," and the olive branch surrounding a sword that pierces a Star of David over the inscription "Israel's Defense Forces" - a reminder that our hand is forever stretched out for peace.

We rose again when Captain Haim Wismonsky, the military judge, decided not to wait in the courtroom for the prosecution's arrival. Then we sat down and waited for the prosecutor, who arrived at around 11:00. When the judge came back, we got up and sat down when he did.

All this time, between getting up and down, seven pot-bellied prison guards in gray prison guards uniforms were busy ushering in detainees, taking off their handcuffs, shackling them again and leading them out.

There were 8 detainees waiting for their trials, all looking thin, smiling, clad in brown prison uniforms. Two are accused of keeping and trading in combat materiel, two of leaving the area without permits, two of membership and activity in an unlawful association, one of hurling objects and one of terrorist acts.

It was eleven AM when the session started at Salem military court.

Everything is Relative

Imad Az Aldin Muhamad Maraba, ID. 948979455, Case No. 3542/09, born in 1986, about to graduate with a degree in Arabic from Al-Najah University and planning to get married. But on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 2 AM, the Israel Defense Forces showed up at his home in Azun Athma, in Qalqilyia district, and today, August 17, he is to be sentenced for the charge of membership and activity in an unlawful association.

He first appeared in Court 1 at Salem on Thursday 6.8.09 for remand extension. The hearing lasted a minute and a half. The judge accepted the plea bargain between the two sides, and the remand was extended for 8 days. In fact, the remand was shortened and eventually another hearing took place at Salem on 12.8.09.

On the day of the sentencing, 5 days after the second remand extension, one of his eight sisters (he also has 4 brothers) wanted to join their parents and attend the trial, but she was refused entry. Detainees are allowed only 2 visitors, no exceptions .

Since he was taken from his bed on July 22, until his first appearance in court on August 6, he has been in Jalame [detention center].

His father instructed Attorney Zahalka to offer to pay a heavier fine to shorten his son's detention. He hoped for 3 months. Considering that membership in Hamas usually results in 18 months in jail, the attorney thought the 6 months he managed to obtain in the bargaining was a great achievement.

The Bound and the Unbound

The prosecution requested 6 months, 2000 shekel fine or alternatively 2 months jail time, plus probation for a period to be determined by the court.

The defense agreed, the judge recognized that Imad had no prior convictions and the activity in question involved merely students' activity and propaganda; Imad was a member of Hamas for only a couple of months and there was no indication of any hostile activity; he admitted his guilt at the first opportunity, thus saving the court the need to summon witnesses, but according to the (Emergency) Defense Laws, membership and activity in an unlawful association carries a punishment, and he admitted his guilt.

The judge added that he was not bound by the agreement between the prosecutor and the defense, and he might come down harder on the defendant. Attorney Zahalka suggested gently that he use his ‘unbound' privilege to hand down a lighter sentence, but the suggestion was rejected on ‘statistical grounds'. "Has anything like this ever happened?" "Really?" "There was a precedent at Salem? Interesting!"

I asked, was it worthwhile to confess and to enter a plea bargain?  Zahalka reminded me that given the legal system that governs the lives of the occupied Palestinians, a plea bargain is the only means guaranteeing a shorter period of the defendant's freedom being denied. This coming Christmas Eve, Imad Maraba will be released from the clutches of the "unbound" judge, from the long arm of the occupation law and from the local theory of relativity, and will resume his life.

We got off lightly this time.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Judge: Achsan Halabi

Defense: Attorney Iyad Machamid

Prosecutor: Maya Hadar

Defendant: Faiz Maher Zacharna, ID 910754423

The defendant was returned to jail following seventeen months at liberty after an appeal by the court regarding the lightness of his sentence. The accused served a fifteen-month sentence in Megiddo Jail. On 28.2.09 he was acquitted and released. According to the prosecutor, the sentence was too lenient, and so the prosecution appealed. Release and acquittal were erroneous.

According to the original indictment, he and his friends planted an explosive charge. The prosecution argued that the charge weighed 35 kg, while the defense maintained that it weighed only 9 kg. (The prosecution cites the case of the Palestinian Finance Minister who was returned to jail after having served his sentence).

The Judge repeats that this is an exceptional case.

The father of the defendant took the witness stand and related that after his son was released, the whole family was astounded when he was jailed again - he was in training to become fireman in the Palestinian Authority, had become engaged, and his wedding was set for 15.8.09. He was living a normal life and did not present any danger to security in the region. Therefore, the father hopes, that court will release his son so he could resume his normal life.

The defense's  arguments were particularly long:  a summary of the main points follows:

After his release, the defendant underwent a period of rehabilitation. He had learned his lesson during his jail sentence, and did not get involved in anything liable to damage security in the region.

In the original indictment, it was not stated that the accused was involved in planning [of planting the bomb], nor was it stated how he had become involved with the action. Although he was in the picture, his part was minimal compared to the part of the others in carrying out the offence. For the defendatn, it was the only event of his getting involved with laying an explosive charge. No damage was caused by the charge. The accused should be allowed to rehabilitate his life; he should receive a fine, and then would be able to return to his natural and normal way of life.

The court recessed, and sentencing would be given afterwards.

The sentence:

• 1. 24 months incarceration. The period of his detention - from 9.12.06 until 28.2.08 - would be deducted. The remainder would begin on 15.7.09, the last day of his detention.
• 2. A suspended sentence of 24 months, for a period of four years from the date of his release from jail, so that he would not commit any offence of the type for which he was sentenced.

(We note that the Minutes of the proceedings are written in Hebrew. The court does not provide a translation to Arabic, which would enable the defendants and their families to read and understand it).

Translation: L.W.

Courtroom 3

Judge: Major Ahsan Halabi

Three prosecutors present, all captains

I came to observe the trial of the teacher Said Salah Said Hatib, arrested at Shaked-Barta'a Checkpoint on 27.4.09 (see reports 3.5.09 and 1.6.09).

I observed other trials in the same courtroom, but could not always follow even though I had the list of the hearings.

At 09:30 the first two defendants and their families were brought into court. The judge entered at 09:38.

1. 2814/08 - Rami Ratab Mustafa Dik, ID 9120533923, charged of shooting at a person.

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Mohaned Harez

The judge wants to conclude the hearing. The parties are not yet prepared. The judge decides that the hearing will be later. I did not stay for it.

2. 3119/09 - Muhamad Faik Muhamad Marshud, ID 945865343, accused of conspiring to cause death.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Halabi replacing Nader Harez

The defendant appears very young. Advc. Halabi received the file only 24 hours ago, and requests continuance.

Evidentiary hearing is set for 17.8.09.

09:50 - request to bring in Said Hatib, released on bail. The Military Policewoman cannot find him.

3.  2159/09 - Alaa Talal Lutfi Rizek, ID 850446329, charged of hostile sabotage activity.

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Halabi replacing Mohaned Harez

Appearance of witnesses waived by agreement of the parties.

Next evidentiary session on 1.9.09.

Alaa's family did not arrive to the courtroom. At the defence request, the judge says they will be allowed to see their son, when they arrive.

4. 2966/09 - Said Majid Abed Elhamid Jaraf, ID 411729023, charged of possessing and trading with combat materiel.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Nadar Harez

The parties will endeavour to reach a bargain today. The hearing will resume later. I did not stay for the continuation.

5. 3040/09 - Bashar Zohir Ahmad Jarib, ID 914246301, charged of hostile sabotage activity.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Nadar Harez

The defendant looks very young. The judge explains to him the details of the indictment: from 2004 until the date of his arrest, he was a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; in the summer of 2005, he threw explosives in an open area, two of which exploded. The defendant denies the charges.

Evidentiary hearing is set for 17.8.09. Witnesses 4, 5 and 6 will be summoned.

6. 2495/09 - Samer Hashem Ahmad Saadi, ID 850229048, accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association.

Stage: arguments for punishment

Defence: Raslan Mahajne

The defendant is young. The family is brought in: father and a young woman, who appears to be pregnant. Defence requests a sub-trial on the admissibility of confession. Prosecution needs two weeks to find witnesses. The case will be transferred to another judge.

10:12 - The judge asks again about Said Hatib. The Military Policewoman goes out to get him. This trial, for which I came, will start in a few minutes (#8).

7. 3120/09 - Ali Ahmad Muhamad Ahul, ID 852532449, accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Advc. Halabi replaces Nadar Harez

Advc. Halabi only recently received the file. The defendant pleads not guilty.

Evidentiary hearing set for 17.8.09. Witnesses 4, 5 and 6 will be summoned.

8. 2329/09 - Said Salah Said Hatib, ID 907632368, charged of attacking and interfering with soldier.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Muid Kabha

Said is released on bail. He wears his own clothes and does not sit in the dock, but on the bench for family members. For his own trial, he is called to the witness stand. The denies the allegations in the indictment.

The next hearing is set for 18.8.09. Defence counsel asks to interrogate witnesses 2, 3 and 4. He forgoes witness 1.

The defence counsel is rushing to the "normal" court in Hadera. Said receives the next summons and departs.

9. 3045/09 - Rafiq Kamal Rafiq Tanbur, ID 850466376, accused of holding a position [in an unlawful association].      .

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: A lawyer from Adv. Fares Abu Hassan's office.

The defendant pleads not guilty.

An evidentiary hearing is set for 17.8.09. Witnesses 2 and 3 will be summoned.

10. 2971/09 - Muhamad Anad Fares Zaban, ID 850759499, accused of possessing and trading with combat materiel.

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Jamal Mahamid

For a reason that I did not understand, the defendant was not present in court. Defence talks with the judge.

11. Regretfully I did not get the defendant's name and what he is being charged with.

Defence: Halabi

The next hearing is set for 18.8.09, and witnesses 2, 3 and 4 will be summoned.

12, 13 and 14: I did not succeed in following these hearings.

15. 2955/09 - Mahmoud Nur Aldin Abed Elkader, ID 938497682, accused of membership and activity [in an unlawful association].

Stage: Arraignment

Defence: Derad Saadi replaced by another advocate.

The defendant pleads not guilty.

First evidentiary hearing on 18.8.09.

16. 2322/09 - Majhad Naaman Rabah Taltin, ID 850021387, accused of membership and activity [in an unlawful association].

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Naal Zahalka

The next evidentiary session is set for 18.8.09. Prosecution witnesses will be summoned.

17. 2570/09 - Mahmoud Nabil Mahmoud Alahras, ID 411508344, accused of conspiracy to cause death.

Stage: Arraignment

Evidentiary hearing is set for 18.8.09. Prosecution witnesses will be summoned.

18. I did not get the defendant's data.

There is a complete plea bargain which the judge accepts. The defendant pleads guilty to the corrected indictment. The offences are throwing stones and exiting a closed military area.

The stone throwing was in the years 2000-2003, on a few occasions at security vehicles, no damage being caused. The exit from a military area was close to the date of arrest. The defendant entered Israel for the purpose of earning a livelihood.

Sentence: 4 months imprisonment, 2000 shekels fine or 2 months incarcaration, and 6 months probation for 2 years.

19. The defendant was not in court. At 11:25 the judge declared a break until 11:45.

I did not return to the court after the break.

The judge maintained a relaxed atmosphere. There was something strange in that the mother tongue of the judge, defense counsels and accused was Arabic, but the hearings were in Hebrew with the help of an interpreter. Occasionally the judge was not sure that the defendant understood everything, so he turned to him directly in Arabic.

Translation: L.W.

10:00 - 14:15

At the entrance to the court, a large coloured inscription: "execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates," Zechariah 8:16.

Courtroom 2

Judge: Lt. Col. Vered Orenstein

We came to observe the trial of two brothers accused of attacking soldiers at Checkpoint 609, near Deir el Azzun (see item 13 in report of 1.6.09).

We did watch other hearings.

1. As a result of debate about our right to receive the list of hearings, and their absence from the courtroom door, we were late in entering the first hearing and did not hear the accused's details.

There is a plea bargain. The accused admitted to a variety of offences in an amended indictment: trading in combat materiel, attempted conspiracy to shoot at a man, throwing stones, forging a document and exit from a closed military area.

The trade in combat materiel was the acquisition of improvised equipment. The attempt at conspiracy happened a year before his arrest. The accused spoke with his brother, who refused the proposal to carry out a shooting attack. The throwing of stones was four months before his arrest, at a military patrol that passed through the centre of the village: no one was harmed. The forgery was of an Israeli ID card with the help of which the accused entered Israeli territory. The judge accepted the plea bargain: 18 months imprisonment from the date of his arrest, and a fine of 3,000 shekels or three months imprisonment in place of the fine, and 8 months probation.

At the request of the defence counsel, the judge fulfilled a previous promise to let the accused's father and young brother talk with him.

2.2070/09 - Nur Aldin Abed Elkarim Naif Atatra, ID 850117268,

accused of manufacturing and throwing an incendiary device.

Hearing: reminder

Defence: Iyad Mahamid

There is a plea bargain. The judge said that the accused and his comrade bought petrol in a gas station to prepare Molotov cocktails: they threw the bottles and stones at vehicles on the main road. No damage was caused by the action and the bottles did not ignite. The action was not within the frame of membership in an organisation.

The accused was on a 7 months probation.

He is now sentenced to 6 months, a fine of 1,000 shekels or a month in jail, and 6 months probation for 5 years. The previous probation will be activated so that 3 months accumulate and 4 overlap, and in practice the sentence is 9 months actual imprisonment.

3.  1459/09 - Muhamad Abed Alhafid Mahmoud Haled, ID 850348921, accused of throwing objects.

Hearing: internal reminder.

Defence: Riad Aarda

The accused is not present. He already confessed on 16.6.09, in front of Judge Major Levi. There is no need for a summons.

Continuance on 5.7.09.

4.  1753/09 - Imad Sail Sanaah - ID 414958017, accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association.

Hearing: Arraignment

Defence: Mahmoud Hassan

Alibi argument cancelled, and there is discussion of plea bargain.

Hearing to be continued on 20.7.09.

5.  1986/09 - Yussuf Abed Elrauf Muhammad Barhush, ID907349872, accused of shooting at a person

Hearing: Arraignment

Defence: Mustafa Azamta

Another defence counsel, Fares Abu Hassan, was also present. The two advocates are going abroad for a month, so that the next hearing was set for 10.8.09.

6.  1757/09 - Rami Malek Radi Ajbar, ID 853052447,  accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Fares Abu Hassan

The accused is very young. There is an agreed plea bargain. The defendant was active in an unlawful association while still at school, took part in prayers of a students movement belonging to Hamas. From December 2008 he was active in another organisation belonging to Hamas, and recruited others. The student activity continued until the date of arrest, and was propaganda oriented, not military. Some of his colleagues in the activity have already been sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment than agreed upon in the plea bargain because their activity ceased before their arrest. Counsel requests to give the defendant an opportunity to return to his university studies.

The judge accepts the plea bargain: 11 months imprisonment, 2,000 shekels fine and six months probation.

A military policeman asks whether to bring in the brothers. Not yet.

7.  We did not get the details of the accused, whose name did not appear on the list.

He was released on bail, hence came in his own clothes and did not sit in the dock, but stood at the witness podium. The judge asks whether he has a counsel. He did have, Advc. Sharab, who resigned.

The proceedings have been going on since 2006. The offence is traffic - driving a vehicle without a license, and others. They search for the bail receipt. It turns out that it is still with the counsel who resigned. The hearing is postponed to 20.7.09, and the court officer is to make sure that Advc. Sharab reports, or brings the  NIS 1,5000 slip for the bail.

8.  1929/09 - no details on the list.

The accused was not present. Defence wanted to discuss the case with the prosecution. Evidentiary hearing is set for 20.7.09, and witnesses 4 and 5 for the prosecution will be summoned.

Again they ask whether to bring in the brothers.

9.  3196/08 - Muhammad Hassan Abed Elrahman Elchajajla, ID 994476349, accused of leaving the area without a permit.

Hearing: Arraignment

Defence: Nael Zahalka

The accused and his counsel are not present. The judge and prosecutor talk between themselves. We do not understand what is happening.

12:00 the judge declares a break until 13:00.

13:00 the brothers are brought into the courtroom. They do not sit together, the elder brother sits in the dock, and the younger one on a side bench. The parents and another brother are present in court.

Return to 9. It turns out that no contact could be established with the accused who was released on 2,000 shekels bail.

The judge says it is a pity to revoke bail. Next hearing set for 27.7.09.

10.  5041/08 - Sabhi Muhammad Salman Abu Adwan, ID 909496259, accused of using fake documentation

Hearing: Arraignment

Defence: name not listed

The accused is not present. He was also not present in previous hearings. He was not summoned to this hearing because he was not accessible. He was released on 800 shekels bail. The judge gives him one more opportunity to appear in order not to revoke bail.

sets the next hearing for 27.7.09. The court officer is to inform the defendant.

11, 12.  Brothers, Massaeb and Maed Barkat

There is an unresolved plea bargain. Length of imprisonment is decided, but not the size of fine. Advc. Jamal Mahamid, Maed's counsel, says that he feels bad that the bargain is falling over the fine, as if the state treasury will be harmed if it isn't paid.

13.  4748/08 - Mahmoud Adnan Mustafa Harasha, ID 852331024, accused of using fake documentation

Hearing: Arraignment

Defence: name not listed

No contact could be established with the defendant. Next hearing set for 27.7.09.

11, 12.  The 2 brothers are brought in again. The judge suggests that the size of fine be left to her judgment. Counsel Agbaria hesitates. Counsel Mahamid talks with the father of the accused. The prosecutor goes to consult with his collegues.

13:35 a break is declared, apparently to resolve the plea bargain.

13:45 hearing resumes. The prosecutor in the case of the brothers is Lt. Louis Alman.

11.  1749/09 --  Massaeb Fuaz Ibrahim Barkat, ID 854129673, accused of attacking a soldier and interfering with him.

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Wissam Agbaria

There is an agreed plea bargain. The accused admits in the amended indictment the offence of attack which took place when he entered the Seam Zone with his brother, refused to pass a check, and violence ensued between him and a soldier. The considerations for plea bargain include evidential difficulty deriving from different versions of the soldiers and of the defendants, and the fact that there is no medical certificate relating the condition of the soldiers.

The defendant was a minor at the time of the offence, and this is his first offence. Ultimately, the defendant confessed and saved the court time.

Sentence: 5 months imprisonment dating from arrest on 27.2.09, 1,000 shekels fine or 2 weeks imprisonment, and 5 months probation for the duration of five years.

12.  1750/09 - Maed Fuaz Ibrahim Barkat, ID 858570740, accused of attacking a soldier and interfering with him.

Evidentiary hearing

Defence: Jamal Mahamid

There is a plea bargain, as with Massaeb. Maed had already crossed to the Seam Line, but when the violence began with his younger brother, he joined him. His offence is less grave than his brother's, but as he is not a minor, their punishment is identical.

The relatively relaxed atmosphere of the courtroom is noteworthy. While the judge and the parties spoke between themselves, the defendants and their families could steal a few words without being shouted at or threatened with removal from the courtroom.

After the trial, Advc. Jamal Mahamid talked with us, and explained that plea bargains are necessary, so that the accused will not sit in detention for longer periods than the prison sentence, even if it does not reflect fair trial, as there was a theoretical possibility of being declared innocent due to the lack of credibility of the witnesses. According to him, a trial with evidence and proofs would have lasted a year. The 2 defendants will thus be released in less than a month. He said that the prosecution demanded a fine of 2,000 shekels each, but in the additional negotiation over the plea bargain, they succeeded in reducing the fine to 1,000 shekels each.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Today is the trial of Said Salah Said Hatib, whose arrest at Shaked-Tura was witnessed by Anna NS and myself on 27.4.09 (see Salem report, 3.5.09).

I received a list of 24 hearings and attended 12 of them.

Judge: Major Giora Eldan.

1. 2635/08 - Amid Said Muhammad Iyad, ID No. 950228890
Accused of conspiracy to kill.
Defense: Muhaned Haraz
Category: Arguments for penalty
Prison time to coincide with time spent in detention.

The prosecution states that a plea bargain has been reached. The defendant was convicted in a previous hearing.
Ten days prior to his arrest the defendant met with a woman whom he tried to enlist for a suicide bombing. The prosecutor reports that the woman turned the defendant down, no target was chosen and no details were agreed upon. There was only talk and no concrete action. No mention of membership in a hostile organization. The defendant, though, has a prior record. In 2004 he was accused of conspiracy. He admitted his guilt and saved the court valuable time, as there was no need to summon witnesses. Since there is some difficulty proving the case, the prosecution agreed to a plea bargain. 14 months in jail seems like an appropriate penalty that serves the public interest.

The defense agrees, adding that the case relies on the testimony of a woman who suffers from mental problems and has family issues. Her allegations are unsubstantiated. Had there been other witnesses, the
defendant would have been acquitted. The defendant told the court that he is his family's sole provider and promised not to repeat the violation.
The judge decides that there are no grounds for conviction. The penalty in the plea bargain is tantamount to an acquittal. Hence, the jail time will coincide with the time spent in detention. It is not a heavy punishment,
the judge says, although deprivation of liberty is a serious matter. The plea bargain is accepted and the detention, started on 23.4.09, will terminate today.
The defendant's probation will be extended by three years. 24 months probation for five years starting today, to deter him from repeating his offense.
I can't begin to describe the joy of the defendant and his family.

2. 2284/09 -  Muhammad Nasser Mahmud Anati, ID No.852300839

Accused of handling and selling combat materiel
Defense: Nader Haraz
Category: Arraignment
The defendant is a young man. His parents and baby daughter are present.
The hearing is postponed to 13.7.09. By then the two sides will decide on
the penalty.

3. 1009/09 - Hanin Ziad Kamel Nasser Allah, ID. No. 910651793
Accused of leaving the territories without a permit.
Defense: Hasan Titi
Category: Arraignment

The judge is shocked:
The defendant is a young woman married to an Israeli Arab. She admits her guilt and accepts the charges. She has no prior convictions and this is her first violation. She was sentenced to three years plus probation. The defense asks for a shorter probation, since during that period the accused won't be able to obtain a permit to enter Israel to meet with her husband. The judge is shocked: not see her husband for three years?
Intolerable. He removes the probation.

4. 2153/09 - Muhammad Ibrahim Abed-el Aziz Yamin. ID No.852378611
Accused of holding and selling combat materiel
Defense: Mustafa Azamta
Category: Arraignment
The defendant is a young, pale man. Hearing is set for 13.7.09.

5. 2468/09 -  Fuad Taleb Said Ashkar, ID No. 850203118
Accused of membership and activity in a hostile organization
Defense: Mustafa Azamta
Category: Arraignment
The defense attorney explains the indictment to his client. The defendant denies the allegations.
Hearing is set for 13.7.09.

6. 2158/09 - Abdullah Haled Abdullah Saluadi, ID No. 850361684
Accused of holding and selling combat materiel
Defense: Mustafa Azamta
Category: Arraignment
Four witnesses will be summoned.
Hearing is set for 13.7.09.

7. The hearing of Said Hatib, whose trial I came especially to hear.
2329/09 - Said Salah Said Hatib, ID No.907632369
Accused of attacking a soldier on duty.
Defense: Muaid Kabha
Category: Arraignment

Surprise: Said is not present. The judge asks a prison guard to find out what's going on. The attorney says he saw Said at Salem at 9:30. The attorney is upset and angry because he is due to appear in court in Haifa
shortly. It turns out that Said was taken to a police interrogation. The judge orders the Prison Service to bring Said in within 15 minutes. In the meantime the hearings continue.

8. 2156/09 - Seif Aldin Hussam Saleh Awad, ID No. 851975185
Accused of preparing/ throwing/planting a bomb.
Defense: Mustafa Azamta
Category: Arraignment
A young man. The attorney explains the charges, and requests a postponement to 13.7.09. Everyone agrees. The defendant's sister has had a baby and he is allowed to greet his family in court. Hallelujah!

9. 2285/09 - Ahmad Ziad Muhammad Kashmar, ID No. 850063025
Accused of membership and activity in a hostile organization.
Defense: Mahmud Hassan
Category: Arraignment
The defense moves to postpone the hearing to 13.7.09.

Back to detainee No. 7. The prison guard announces that Said will arrive in three minutes. The hearing continues.

10. 2146/09 - Yusuf Halil Yusuf Hajab, ID No. 854327731
Accused of manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Category: Arraignment.
The detainee is a young man. His family, including a sweet little girl, tires to communicate with him from a distance. The girl sends him a message with hand gestures and he sends her a heartfelt kiss. The detainee
looks happy and does not listen to the judge. The hearing is postponed.

11. 2328/09 - Muhammad Rajah Muhammad Albazur, ID No.907629513
Accused of membership and activity in a hostile organization.
Defense: Muhmad Haraz
Category: Arraignment
The accused denies the allegations.
Next hearing set for 13.7.09.

Back to No. 7, Said Salah Said Hatib.
The Israeli Police representative explains: After the security check Said was sitting in the waiting room. Half an hour later, a prison guards checked ID cards and took Said for questioning. They were told about his
scheduled trial and were asked to be brief. Unfortunately, the questioning dragged on because they wanted to finish the interrogation before Said entered the court. The policeman apologizes for the inconvenience.
Said is led in. He is on bail. He wears civilian clothes and does not sit on the defendant's bench.
The defense states that the investigation was concluded about a month ago and that the prosecution has submitted an indictment based on the investigation transcript. The defense takes a very dim view of the present
investigation.
The judge says there's probably need for further investigation.
The defense objects to an investigation on the day of trial. The judge says it is permissible.
The defense says that at this stage, when the investigation is allowed to continue, he needs more time to examine the new material and moves to postpone.
The judge accepts the motion; there is no objection from the prosecutor.
The hearing is set for 14.7.09 with Justice Halabi presiding.

12. 3711/08 - Nadem Jaber Othman Miale, ID No. 850444878
Accused of membership and activity.
Defense: Muhaned Haraz
Category: memorandum
The attorney moves to postpone. The hearing is set for 13.7.09.

13. Said's attorney recommends that I move to Courtroom 1.
The hearing here is similar to that of Said. Two brothers are accused of attacking soldiers. I enter after the session has begun. The judge is a woman.
A solder testifies that he saw nothing. A Palestinian shoved him and he fell to the ground.
The two defense attorneys, through repeated cross -examination, try to challenge the soldier's allegations. The judge declares a 30-minute recess. She has 14 other cases and looks exhausted (so am I).
After the recess another soldier testifies. He is the checkpoint commander, a tall, robust fellow. He swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.  The prosecutor wants him to describe the checkpoint ("crossing" in her parlance). He says he serves in the Tul-Karm region and that the gate is an 'agricultural' one. At fixed hours, the state allows the farmers to cross in the morning and return in the evening when their work is done. This is Gate No. 609. At 7:30 PM, they check the passengers for illegal objects. This is their job. On 28.4.09 a resident of the village arrived. The soldier is asked to point at the person (there are two defendants on the bench). The soldier continues: The resident is registered as eligible for passage. Then his brother arrived. He was repeatedly told to stop, but he continued to walk, so they pointed the gun at him and he stopped. He was told to lift his shirt - standard procedure - and he refused, shouted, threw a fit and continued to approach the
soldier who insisted on keeping a safe distance. The brother, who had been watching, ran back and pushed the soldier.
The witness explains that this is an 'agricultural checkpoint', small and friendly; the soldiers recognize the Palestinians, who cross there daily, so he did not take the incident seriously and continued his daily routine.
He checked the ID of the younger brother, the "troublemaker" and found him on the black list. He let the other farmers through and started attending to the brothers at 6:50; a third Palestinian was present. He asked the
younger brother for his permit, but the man shoved him and hit him with his fist. The soldier hit back and they both fell down. The soldier called for help. A scout who happened to be in the area shot into the air. The
third Palestinian ran away, they overpowered the brothers and the incident was over.
The attorney wanted to know if there is a camera at the checkpoint. The soldier said he was not authorized to answer this question.
The judge said: If you know the answer, tell us.
The soldier says he does not know. He is in charge of the checkpoint and he checked the younger brother's ID. The soldiers were interrogated by the Military Police Investigators. A complaint was lodged against them.
The defense requests to see a transcript of the investigation.
The Prosecutor promises to check. She wants to finish examining the soldier.
The soldiers' testimonies seem to be coordinated. The checkpoint commander is impatient with the defense's questioning. He vents his frustration and is reprimanded by the judge.
The judge wants to hasten the process. She has other cases.
The defense tries to find inconsistencies in the soldiers' testimonies.
The commander says he lost a tooth as a result of the fistfight.
There will be more testimonies at the next hearing. There is a request for medical reports.
The next hearing is set for 29.6.09.

  

 

Translation: Bracha Ben-Avraham

10.00 - A series of remands are pronounced:

1. Adnan Kamal Malam

2. Ahmed Ziad Kashmer

3. Mohammed el Sadek Abu Elrub

4. Ali Hassan Mohammed Tuema

Hearings were also conducted for the following detainees:

-Mohammed Rajar Albazar: Accused of possessing combat materiel and endangering the security of the State.

Remand set with agreement of both sides.

(Name unknown) accused of membership in a hostile organization.

Remand - 65 days until the indictment is submitted.
   

Sa'id Mustafa Salah: A teacher in Um el Reihan in the seamline enclave.

Accused of provocation and preventing a soldier from performing his duty.  According to the prosecution, he constitutes a potential danger for physical harm to a soldier who was defending the borders of the State of Israel.

According to the prosecution he struck the soldier with his fist.

Attorney Kabha claims that there were people from the village: the head of the council, students, and teachers who witnessed what occurred. 

He asks: Is it feasible that a teacher who was surrounded by 10 armed soldiers would attack a soldier?  He asks to receive the footage of the film that was shot at the checkpoint, as legal evidence.

The attorney asks that the detainee be released immediately.  He claims that he did not come to the checkpoint to quarrel with a soldier or to push any soldier - the opposite is true:  The soldier was the one who pushed Sa'id.  The attorney claims that Sa'id's presence at school is important, since there are examinations at this time of year, and that he endangers no one and did not come to provoke a fight.
 

The incident occurred on Monday, 27.4.09.  Anna and I (observers from Machsom Watch) were at Tura checkpoint at the time.  On that day a group of students went to Ramallah on an annual school trip and held up the passage of other students on their way to school in Yaabed.

Sa'id accompanied the students and was due to return to school after they passed through the checkpoint, but his 14-year-old nephew who does not speak Hebrew went through the checkpoint quickly and did not understand when a soldier called him to stop.  The soldier became angry when the youth ignored him, grabbed his schoolbag, threw its contents on the ground, and detained him. 

This is what people said who were present at the checkpoint coming  from the the West Bank towards the seamline zone.

We have heard many complaints about this particular soldier from people passing through the checkpoint.  He curses people harshly and detains them for no reason.  A pregnant woman who refused to undergo an electronic check was detained for many hours. 

Sa'id tried to intervene for his nephew and asked why he was being detained from going to school.  There were 10 soldiers at the checkpoint at the time, some of whom were armed.  An argument broke out and the soldiers shouted at Sa'id to shut up and sit down at the side.  They then pushed him.  Is it conceivable that a teacher would attack a soldier?

The soldiers called the police.  The policeman interrogated [Sa'id] and wrote it down.  I approached him and said that we were here and that we wished to bear witness in favour of the teacher.

The policeman then left, but sent a police van to arrest Sa'id.

13:00:  The judge agrees to free Sa'id on bail of NIS 10,000. 

The attorney asks to lower the bail and the judge refuses.  Sa'id's brother signs the decision, and the amount will be returned after the fine is deducted, if one is owed.

The prosecuter is allowed to appeal the decision within 72. He did indeed submit  an appeal.

The laywer called me in the evening and told me that the decision to release Sa'id on bail had been cancelled. 

More remands followed.  Most of the detainees are young people or minors.  According to the prosecution, there is evidence against them.