Palestinians staying illegally in Israel

Translation: Marganit W.

We entered the court compound without a hitch. Only remand extension hearings were held today in two halls. All other hearings were re-scheduled due to conferences. We were told that the attorneys and the families had not been informed of the change.

In Courtroom 2 remand extension hearings were conducted for a docket of 32
"Days Detainees".
 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Shmuel Kedar
Prosecutor: Atty. David Gabai Richter

About half of the detainees have no charge sheets yet. Their interrogation has been completed; all have violations involving "risk factor". The prosecution enumerates some of the violations and requests remand extension to complete the indictment. At this stage of the procedure the interrogation material is confidential: the attorney is not familiar with the evidence presented to the judge. The judge examines the file and within minutes decides on how many days are required for the prosecution to complete the indictment.
Other detainees (17 today) do have charge sheets. Some confess to at least a few violations. Based on their admission, their attorneys bargain with the prosecution for reduced penalty (plea bargain). The judge declares that he is not OBLIGATED to accept the agreement, but he eventually accepts it - since the suspect has confessed, thereby saving the court's precious time, or conversely, since there are "evidentiary difficulties" in the file  (the prosecution may not be able to prove its case while the admission in itself is not sufficient to convict). Thus, the court prefers to impose a reduced sentence, without convincing evidence, rather than release the suspect, taking into account circumstances such as no prior record, the age of the suspect, the state of his health etc.
 

Detainees who do not confess during their interrogation, have their detention extended for several days, until "conditions are ripe" for a plea bargain, when they confess to acts that they did or did not commit, hoping to shorten their jail term. (The few detainees who adamantly refuse to confess will have to fight for their innocence in a long evidentiary trial.)
 

Today's session included detainees with and without charges, some who confessed and others who denied the allegations. They were all represented by an attorney; most had relatives in court. A considerable number of violations involved illegal stay in Israel. This all too common violation is usually coupled with other charges, such as "causing damage to the separation wall," using false papers, possession of a knife, fleeing the police and attacking a policeman or a soldier. For example:
 

Abdulrahim  Muhammad Mahmud Znobar, ID 990000952 - Case 1040/12
Defense: Atty Issam Mrar

Znobar is accused of staying in Israel without a permit and causing damage to a military installation (the separation fence).
The detainee is 51 years old. He has been sitting in court since early morning: his case came before the judge only toward noon. He speaks fluent Hebrew and tries to explain his situation, but the judge tells him repeatedly, "Tell it to your attorney," refusing to let him speak.
The prosecution moves to detain the suspect until the procedure is complete.
The suspect admits to having crossed the fence illegally, but he insists that there was already a hole in the fence.

The attorney explains that his client crossed into Israel to receive donations from an organization that operates inside Israel, helping him with medical expenses. He was caught right away (and captured on camera), but no tools were found on him with which he could have broken the fence (the attorney specifically mentions a disk saw, which is heavy and unwieldy). The police report contains contradictory statements by an observer and by security forces patrolling the area. The defense presents documents testifying to the detainee's severe, life threatening medical condition.
The judge rejects the prosecution's motion and releases the accused under
limiting conditions: a 5000-shekel deposit with third party guarantee of 5000.
Arraignment hearing is set for 13.2.12 before Major Meir Vigiser.
 

Other cases heard today were also marked by blowing routine occurrences out of proportion.
A boy in detention for 12 days is charged with carrying, possessing and producing arms. It turns out that the boy was collecting bullets and shells found in a field near an army base located close to his village.
Perhaps he intended to use these for some purpose, but the judge decided to accept the plea bargain struck between the sides, declaring the 12 days already served as actual jail time, plus a suspended sentence of 3 months for a year and a 1000 shekel fine or a month in jail.

The boy could be released today, if he paid the fine.

Harabi Abed Rabba, ID 952905669 - Case 1043/12
Defense: Atty. Rony Salman
A 45-year old shepherd, father of 8, living in the mountains near Yatta, where he tends to a flock of 80 sheep.

He looks out of place in the court: neither a city dweller, nor a farmer - someone living outside familiar circumstances.
During the hearing for his remand extension, he was charged with endangering human life in traffic, using a - suspected - stolen vehicle, fleeing from the police and possession of a knife.
The judge rejects the defense's motion and sides with the prosecution that argues for clear and imminent danger and flight risk. The file, he claims, points to severe violations.

In a session that took place on 17.1.12 – a week later - this case was presented before Justice Lieut.-Col. Menashe Vachnish. The file already included a charge sheet. The prosecutor was Captain Mazi Mekonen.
Harab Abed Rabbe admitted trying to flee the police for fear that his vehicle would be impounded since it had no registered owner and was about to be taken apart.
The defense explained that his client is a simple man, detached from urban life, living in the mountains with his family and flock, having minimal contact with people, and he had never been in trouble with the law.

The defense pointed out discrepancies in the officers' testimonies regarding an
assault. He requested the court to release his client under any conditions the judge sees fit, since detaining him would wreak havoc on his family: there is nobody to take care of his flock.
Two brothers of the accused were in court, ready to "assume full responsibility for him", meaning, presumably, that they guarantee he won't "flee from justice" and report to court, if required.
In his decision, the judge refrained from addressing the differences between prosecution and defense, ignoring the main charge of fleeing from the police and attacking an officer. The judge declared the accused 'dangerous' because he drove a condemned vehicle, thus endangering life.
This, according to the judge, was the reason for the arrest, and this is why the man is a flight risk. [The judge may not know it, but "ownerless" vehicles, which are unregistered and uninsured, are commonly used by locals in the Palestinian enclaves of C area].
The judge ordered a remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings and set an arraignment hearing for 13.2.12 before Justice Meir Vigiser.

 

 

Translation: Marganit W.

A few minutes after our arrival, the last family members of the prisoners were admitted into the facility. We waited for 15 minutes for the gate to open. At the window the guard checked that our permits (with names, which is not required) were in order before letting us in.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Prosecutor: Atty. Batya Piterio
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen
Most of the defendants were young boys.
 

Defendant: Azzadin Abu Shamaa, born 1997, from Al-Aroub refugee camp.
He is accused of throwing rocks and participating in a disturbance of the peace. A plea bargain stipulated 75 days incarceration (to coincide with time spent in detention), 1000 shekel fine and a suspended sentence of 5 months for 4 years, if he is ever accused of throwing rocks again.
Arguments for "leniency": no prior record, admission of guilt and his young age (he was not yet14 when the violation was committed).  It is important to note that during the plea bargain "evidentiary difficulties" were cited. Shouldn't this be grounds for withdrawal of the charge??
According to Azzadin's father, he was accused of taking part in "Naqba Day" demonstration; he was arrested a week later and has been detained for two and a half months (this schedule is questionable, since Naqba Day was
on May 15).

Zakaria Abu Aisha, 16 years old, from Bethlehem.
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen.
According to the revised charge sheet, the defendant admits to throwing rocks and paint bottles at defense forces, and hurling a Molotov cocktail at security forces last March.
The defense argued that despite the defendant's past record, the court should consider the fact that he is a minor. The judge reminded the defendant that at the previous trial he had claimed that friends dragged him along and he had promised not to repeat the offense; yet here he is again. It turns out that on 12.4.10 he was convicted of attacking and stabbing, together with friends. At the time he claimed that a friend threatened him and forced him to commit the act. He never intended to hurt anyone. He was sentenced to 12 months of time served and 12 months suspended sentence, which goes into effect today. He was released a year ago.
The judge approved a plea bargain, taking into account the defendant's past and the fact that the previous sentence was not enough of a deterrent; on the other hand, the court took into account his minority and his mental immaturity. His admission also contributed to the "leniency".
He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for this violation in conjunction with 3 months for the breach of the suspended sentence. In addition he will be jailed for 9 months. Altogether: 24 months. The judge declared this a lenient sentence considering the severity of the charges. Two years are not a light sentence for a kid this age.
The boy's face did not betray any emotion. His father, who sat next to us, spoke to him in a warm, soothing voice: You have two years now: use it to learn Hebrew, read the Koran, talk to God, use your time well. To us, the father remarked that his son was wrongly charged.

Omar Muhammad Al-Rahman, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Asser Abd Al-Hakkim Shehadah, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Defense: Atty. Ahlam Haddad
It was a joint hearing for both defendants.
The court accepted a plea bargain: the defendants were convicted as per their admission to having climbed a ladder over the fence and entering Atarot compound where they set fire to a tire and a cardboard. The court declared this not to be a clear case of "illegal sojourning" in Israel.
They were sentenced to jail time coinciding with their detention (66 days) and a 3000 shekel fine each, or alternately 3 months, plus suspended sentences for 4 years for similar violations of throwing objects. The arguments for the plea bargain were their admission of guilt at the police interrogation, their young age and the fact that there were serious flaws in the investigation. "Faulty investigation". In her decision, the judge added that in the future the court would show no tolerance for such lapses in a criminal investigation.
Atty. Ahlam later told us what the "faults" were. The interrogation was not filmed, only recorded. A comparison between the cassette and the transcript shows that only a few of the questions and answers were written down. There was no Juvenile Interrogator present; the interrogator yelled at the boys, the interrogation was conducted in Hebrew with interpretation, but the boys were unable to follow and verify what was said. Why are these failures called "flaws"? Is it just deviation from procedural rules or grounds for appealing the charges?

Salwwa Hassan, 51 years old.
Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan
The defendant's son, 24 years old, was present in court and her face lit up when she saw him.
She is charged with chasing a settler with a knife at a checkpoint. (recorded in a film). The defendant claims that she had heard voices telling her to do it. A regional psychiatrist examined her and declared her fit to stand trial.

The defense argued that there are gaps between his version and the prosecution's and that he was trying to bridge those gaps. He requested a postponement.

Next hearing is set for 18.1.12.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon

Courtroom 4

Judge: Etty Adar

Four defendants are in the dock. The charge: using false documents. Behind this sanitized phrase lurks a reality full of desperation, fraud, exploitation, dispossession and deception.

Every Palestinian working in Israel needs a work permit. Only an Israeli employer can apply for such permit. For this privilege of employing workers from the Occupied Territories the state exacts from the employer between 1200 and 1500 shekels a month for each employee. In my experience, it is the workers themselves that pay this sum. On one hand, we have a huge reservoir of young people willing to do any work under any condition in order to subsist; on the other hand, the employers are well aware of this situation and they need workers. The state of Israel oversees all this and profits from this state of affairs: the monthly payments remitted by tens of thousands of Palestinians for the privilege of being exploited generate a huge income. In addition to having to pay, the workers sleep in the fields in summer and in parking lots and warehouses in winter, they wait interminably at checkpoints and every six months they have to renew the permit. This leads to manipulation, extortion and attempts to recruit collaborators, as well as abusing and intimidating the frightened persons who don’t even know what’s written in the permits since they are all written in Hebrew. Now back to the four defendants at Ofer.

This is what I heard from the father of two of the defendants:

-There are people who come and get the workers. They say, ‘Come work for us, we’ll get you permits and you’ll pay for them’.

-Jews or Arabs?

-Arabs from Beersheva. They took them to work in agriculture. They work for 1-2 months. For each permit they paid 1500 shekels. Then they said, ‘The work is over, we’ll take you somewhere else to work’. They took them in their car, but those permits were for 6 months. Then they said the price was 1800 shekels a month. The workers did not know if the permits were fake or not. They worked in Jerusalem, then Tel Aviv with someone from Abu Ghosh. He took them to work and left. They were stopped at the Kastel. They showed their permits and were told the permits were forgeries. They said they did not know: they had paid for those permits. Two months ago they were taken to Atarot and from there to detention at Ofer.

In court the boys were protesting loudly. They argued with Atty. Daoud Azi and denied the allegations.

One of the detainees, Tarek Muhammad Salem Ad’is (Case No. 3838/11, ID 850168543) serves as spokesman for the group.

His insistence prevented a plea bargain so an evidentiary trial was set for Sunday 25.9.11 before Justice Dalya Kaufman. This did not work. The attorney reached an agreement with the prosecution: they will serve a penalty of 4-6 months starting with the day of arrest. Thus, having been deceived, abused and bamboozled they are now sent to jail. Israel will never again grant them permits to be exploited for its benefit.

On Sunday, 25.9.11 we spoke to a father of one of the detainees They will serve time between 2-4 months and pay a cumulative fine of 11.000 shekels.

 

On television a commentator on Arab Affairs (who probably spends most of his time in Ramallah) reported that the West Bank is experiencing an “economic boom”. The eight detainees I saw in court today – charged with using forged papers and “leaving the area without permit” – never heard of this economic boom and would have certainly wondered why they were not part of it.

Take for instance Saed Tawfik Zir (Case No. 4001/11, ID 901183772) stopped at Hizma Checkpoint with a fake permit using a fake name. Did he know the permit was a forgery?

At A-ram Checkpoint “certain people” offer to arrange permits for passers-by. Saed gave one of them 1000 shekels and a photo and in return got an entrance permit into Israel. At Hizma Checkpoint he was caught and detained and later confessed. An agreement between Atty. Nubani and the prosecution was approved by Justice Major Amir Dahan who handed down the sentence: 91 days of time served, 2000 shekels fine or two more months, plus suspended sentence for one month. When I left the court, the defendant’s parents followed me and asked for help. They are both sick and helpless. They don’t have 2000 shekels, what can they do? The son is the only provider in the family.

Leaving aside the pain, the shame and the guilt, why doesn’t the state of Israel, with its sophisticated information technologies, arrest those thieving dealers? Everyone knows where they operate and what they do. The state arrests and punishes the victims while the crooks continue their business unimpeded. This is the aim of the legal system of the occupation: to keep the wheels turning; let economic distress push the unemployed and the hungry into the clutches of crooks who would not have been able to mass produce fake permits and unwilling collaborators without the collusion of the Israeli authorities. The system will continue to churn fines for coffers of the state.

 

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Defense: Atty. Haled Araj

Defendant: Zuheib Jamal Joda Hushia (Case No. 3512/11,ID 852558873)

Charge: Membership and activity.

The defendant is now a student of history and social sciences. There is no proof of his continued membership in an unauthorized organization - a Koran study group – from 2008 until his arrest.

For studying the Koran he is sentenced to 7 months in jail, 2 month suspended sentence and 2000 shekels fine.

 

The hearing in the case of Bassem Tamimi took place in the afternoon before Justice Etty Adar. Present in court were Bassem’s wife, another relative, members of Anarchists Against the Fence who support the Nabi Salah detainees, a reporter from Der Spiegel accompanied by two soldiers from the Army Spokesman’s Office (one was Yair Netanyahu [ the PM’s son] accompanied by two guards), and two officials from the German Consulate in Ramallah.

The entire session dealt with future hearing dates: 25.9.11, 16.10.11, 24.10.11, 26.10.11, 2.11.11, 16.11.11.

 

  

General note: Again, we found no dockets. Only after our request did we receive the lists from the interpreter.

Upon our arrival at 10 AM we encountered a man who told us he had come to retrieve his bail money, following his acquittal. He had been there since 8:30. When we left the court at 12, he was still there. The officer said, “Just because he’s been waiting for a long time doesn’t mean he can get his money back right away (but when he was enjoined to deposit the money, it had to be right away.) The man was sent someplace (we could not hear the name) and left the compound with us, after four hours and without the money.

 

Justice Shmuel Fleischman’s court

In most cases the prosecution requested a deferment.

During the discussion Atty. Ilya Theodory asked the judge why he was not providing the defendants with the protocols of the hearings of their cases. In reply the judge asked: What do the defendants need the protocols for? Atty. Theodory insisted the protocols be given to the defendants so they can study them in prison, consulting other prisoners, some of whom are lawyers.

 

Jihad Nabil Jamil Alza’abaneh – Case no. 3176/11

Accused of leaving the area without a permit.

Defense attorney Issam Mrar seeks a plea bargain. The defendant has been in jail for two months. He accepts the charges but refuses to strike a bargain. He does not want to be represented by Atty. Mrar.

The judge tells the defendant that he has no choice. “This is not ‘At Your Request ‘program” (his exact words). The court nominates a judge from a given list and the defendant has a choice to be represented by that attorney or not to be represented at all. [Is this the procedure inside Israel as well?] The judge further explains the advantages of this arrangement. When a defendant admits his guilt, the penalty is reduced; this mitigation will not prevail if he insists on an evidentiary trial. The defendant insists on a trial.

The hearing is set for next week, 17.8.11

 

Later we attended the trial of Farid Muafek Farid Za’abaneh – ID. 911530756. He, too, is accused of leaving the area without a permit and also of “damaging the fence.” Atty. Mrar was appointed by the court to represent him.

Prosecutor Jenny Lubovsky tells the court that on four occasions the defendant entered Israel illegally, once through the fence. Such violations, she claims, are very burdensome for the security forces. In the last few years, this has become a major concern for the army. The damage to an army installation is in itself reason for a harsh sentence. We soon found out what damage Farid Za’baneh had caused. He had jumped over the fence and was captured at A-zaim checkpoint. This is the reason that the prosecution demands a stiff punishment.

Defense: The defendant admitted right away that he had entered Israel several times without a permit. Thus he saved the court precious time. He is getting married next month, and the wedding has already been postponed because of his arrest. He has no criminal record; he works in construction and has 6 brothers whom he helps to support. He’s been in jail for almost 2 months. This period should suffice and the court should take into consideration his economic situation.

The judge asked the defendant a few questions:

Q: Why did you enter Israel?

A: I want to work.

Q: Tell me about yourself, your parents, your siblings.

A: My father has diabetes. I went to school for 8 years. Two of my brothers are married.

Q: Does your mother work?

A. Yes. (it is not clear he understood that the judge asked if she is  ‘gainfully employed’)

Q: You understand that you are getting a suspended sentence, and if you are caught again, you will be sent to prison for a longer period. How can I make sure you don’t enter Israel illegally again?

A: I learned my lesson.

Decision: Taking into account several considerations and the defendant’s personal circumstances: 70 days in jail, starting with his arrest (60 of them he already spent in detention), 6 month probation and 2000 shekels fine or a month in jail.

 

Yussuf Mussa Yussuf Hawasha – ID. 941810558– case no. 3803/11

Remand extension.

Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky

Defense: Mahmud Hassan (from A-Damir organization)

Hawasha, a resident of Bir-Zeit, is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association. Since the end of 2009 until his arrest – or thereabout – he was a member or an operative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He organized their parades.

He was arrested after being incriminated by Walid Habas who identified him in a photo and claimed that he saw him at a meeting in 2009. They used to meet every other week to discuss the political situation.

The defense asks to postpone the hearing so he can study the GSS report before the next hearing.

Here is a précis of the previous hearing that took place on 2.8.11.

The defense finds holes in the testimony. The witness knows the defendant as Abu-Yaffa and gave no other identifying details. He did identify him in a photo, but the question is: how did the interrogator get a picture of the defendant while the latter denies knowing his incriminator. The investigators should have confronted the two in order to substantiate the claim. The fact that they did not confront them proves that the investigators were not trying to find the truth.

The trial will continue on 14.9.11

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.)
 

General Notes:
1. Lately, check-ups at the entrance have become stricter: last week security guides examined my writing pad and my hairpins (which I always remove because of the magnetometer). This time they were taken away and deposited together with our IDs.
2. Getting out of the compound was equally difficult: we had to wait, together with several families, for about half an hour, calling and ringing the bell, to get the attention of Nadav (in charge of security check).
3. As described in Hava's report from last week, there were difficulties with access to dockets. In two courtrooms we had to request them, and in another the interpreter referred us to Rafa (Head of Interpreters) who supposedly had those dockets, but the latter denied it.
4. We came to observe the trial of  the Al-Zi'ul brothers (See last week's report). Their names were not on the list, and we did not see their parents in court. Thus, the difficulty in obtaining the dockets dictates which trials we observe.

Judge: Zvi Heilbronn

Defendant: Samer Mahana Abed Alkadar Abu Maria - Case No. 2612/11
Charge: Leaving the area without a permit. He is not in detention.
We did not get the attorney's name. It was an arraignment hearing. The defendant denies the allegation that he used false papers, claiming that those were official documents. Witnesses will be summoned and documents will be presented.

The defendant was accompanied by his father, a blind old man in tattered clothes and old shoes with no socks, who drew the judge's attention to himself.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

Defendant: Muatasem Mazen Abd Elkadar Rakban - Case No. 4526/10
Charge: Manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout
(When we entered the court, the trial was in session)
The defendant stated that he had accepted the charges at the police station because he wanted to settle scores with Nidal, the operative who controlled him.

The prosecutor asked why he also confessed to acts where Nidal was not implicated, but the defendant did not understand the question, despite repeated attempts to simplify it.

As to why in his interrogation he also admitted throwing Molotov Cocktails at events where he was not present, the defendant replied that he had been intimidated and
threatened with transfer to the Russian Compound.

The defense skipped the cross-examination; he was not ready for summation at this stage.
An oral summation hearing (with both sides agreeing) was set for 26.7.11
at 9 AM.

The prosecutors is to present the evidence within a week.

Defendant: Halil Muhammad Halil Awauda - Case No. 2559/11.
Charged with membership and activity in a hostile organization.
Defense: Atty. Abu-Mazar (?)
The defendant understands and denies the allegations.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 13.9.11, as the defendant requested to have the hearing after the month of Ramadan [August].

Defendants:

Rashad Muhammad Marshad Hamad - Case No. 2034/11
Muhammad Izat Izat - Case No. 2035/11
Muhammad Ahmad Mahmud Hamad - Case No. 2036/11
Charge: attempted killing.
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara
The trial of the three defendants was postponed to 6.9.11 because the attorney could not find the file.

Defendant: Hassan Abed Almatlab Abed Aljaffer Bakri - Case No. 5357/11
Charge: Using and dealing drugs.
Defense: Atty. Avi Baram
The defendant was caught in Azariya in possession of a "dangerous drug", hashish (53 grams) and 17 Ecstasy pills.

The defendant understands the charge and admits guilt. He has prior convictions.
The sides reached a plea bargain involving 6-month jail time because of an earlier suspended sentence, plus 7 more months for this violation. The agreement calls for overlapping jail sentences of 10 months and 4000 shekel fine or 4 months in jail.

The court was to consider a suspended sentence.
Grounds for the agreement: the defendant's prior record.

The attorney maintains that the defendant has a serious drug problem, but the PA has no
rehab facility. He has 4 children. He is asking the court to divide the suspended sentence into two violations: dealing drugs and using drugs.

The court approved the agreement and accepted the defense' plea. The defendant
received a 3 month suspended sentence for 3 years for using drugs and 8 months suspension for 3 years for the crime of dealing drugs.
The court ordered the destruction of the drugs and the knife found during the arrest, but returned 1780 shekels confiscated from the defendant at that time. The court also recommended that the GSS enroll the defendant in a rehab program.

According to the arrangement, the defendant has a month and 8 days to serve time.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
 

Defendant: Ossama Mahmud Abed Alaziz Kamel - Case No. 3184/11
Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: atty. Akram Samara.
The defendant is 16 years old.
The defendant admits to throwing rocks at the separation fence on five occasions. However he denies throwing rocks at moving vehicles.

As for his signed statement at the police, he claims that he confessed and
incriminated others because he was beaten. After being interrogated for two hours by Captain Daud (who beat him and slapped his face), the captain asked if he had a lawyer. He said no. He was alone in a room with Captain Daud. He was then transferred to another interrogator who also ignored the attorney issue. That second interrogator did not beat him up, but he told him that everything he had told Daud was already written in the statement, so he repeated what he had said earlier.

As to why he incriminated those specific people, he said those were the names that popped into his head.
In reply to his attorney's question, he said he had been taken from home at 5 AM.

The judge commented (with a rather cynical smile, to my mind) that apparently they waited until morning.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

We came to observe a trial, which did not take place that day.
Only two courts were operating. Most hearings were remand extensions, but no dockets were posted on the doors. There is no device for posting the dockets and the list of hearings is three days old.

Courtroom 5
Judge: Lieut. Avshalom Meushar

The small courtroom is filled with the usual din of lawyers, prosecutor, judge, detainees and family members talking to each other. The judge dictates to the typist, rephrasing statements by prosecutor and defense.
And above it all, the interpreter's voice, like a muezzin, fills the air.

Diaa Alsheikh - Case No. 2292/11, ID 410835581
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Jabarin
Diaa Alsheik, from the village of Bidu, is accused of trading in combat materiel. He was arrested in May 2011 for agreeing to supply a gun to people who had approached him. The testimonies were taken in December 2009 and were based on a conversation that had taken place in 2007.

In 2010 Diaa Alsheik was arrested for throwing rocks. In January 2011 he was
convicted and was in jail until 10.3.11.
The attorney raised some crucial questions. The testimony was taken in 2009.

A year later Diaa was in an Israeli jail. Why was he not interrogated?
Why was he interrogated two years after testifying about an event that had taken place two years before his deposition?
No police line-up was arranged, and it is not clear that the name mentioned in the interrogations is actually his.
It is not at all clear that he agreed to provide a gun when asked to do so.
The prosecutor responds that an indictment could not be submitted without
further evidence.
The judge concludes that detention is not warranted. He explains the reasons, adding a significant fact: Witness No. 8 stated that after the conversation with Diaa, the subject was dropped because they thought that Diaa was connected to the PA and might inform on them.
The judge sums up: "From this testimony I deduce that his denial of the attempt to purchase an M16 may be substantiated. The testimony was given on 20.12.09 whereas the defendant was convicted and sentenced on 8.1.11.
There is a fundamental flaw in the process, and there is no reasonable explanation why the prosecution did not use interrogation records it had in its possession since December 2009.
The judge adds that Witness No. 5 failed to link the defendant to the purchase of the M16, and that the attempt to obtain the gun happened 2 years before the December 2009 testimony. "These circumstances point to insufficient evidence. The prosecution mentions rock throwing, but the incident does not appear in the indictment."
Diaa was released under the following conditions:
1000 shekel deposit - third party guarantee of 10,000 shekels – reporting to the police once a week.
However, the temporarily released detainee is from Bidu, a village in the Ramallah district, which is separated from its surroundings by a separation fence or wall. In order to report to the police he has to obtain special permit to cross the checkpoint.
The judge struck down the need to report to the police.

Judge: Eran Laufman
Defense: Atty. Munzer Abu Ahmed
Category: remand extension

The accused, Abed Alkader Shaur, about 50 years old, is a spare parts for cars
dealer. He is dressed in civilian clothes and wears a Palestinian worker's cap. He is an odd-man-out among the youngsters who usually sit in the dock.
 

This story has many of the typical elements of the military courts and the occupation.
During the trial I spoke to a policeman from Lahav 433 unit, whose job is to apply "effective and swift enforcement; a professional and sophisticated response to organized crime and to  fight against public corruption." The policeman told me that Mr. Shaur is suspected of dealing in stolen spare parts and possession of stolen goods. On 9.6.11 he was caught on Allenby Bridge with about 500 car and engine parts, which he planned to sell in Jordan.
So what's wrong?
The policeman explained that the Oslo Agreements state that the PA is barred from importing spare parts. Palestinians can import new cars but not parts; so if Mr.Shaur has in his possession vehicular spare parts, they must be stolen - from Israel - and on their way to "chop shops".
The attorney later explained that the Oslo Agreements also contain other clauses governing spare parts, but they are not relevant to our case. What matters is the police claim.
Later, Atty. Abu Ahmed told me that only 28 engines found in Mr Shaur's possession are suspect. The prosecutor, who was in civilian garb, also belongs to Unit Lahav 433. She requested remand extension of 18 days to complete the investigation. Towards the end of the hearing however, amid the haggling over the length of the remand, a new charge appeared: The judge read in the documents that the defendant is a resident of Hebron - it says so on his ID card. The attorney insisted that his client is from Shuafat. Hebron, said the judge. Shuafat, said the attorney.
"So you're saying that he is an illegal sojourner? " asked the policeman, who had joined his colleague, the prosecutor.
It turns out that Mr. Shaur has two wives, one in Hebron, one in Shuafat. Most of the time he resides with his second wife, but the Civil Administration registered him in Hebron. Thus, he must be a resident of Hebron. Whenever he stays with his second wife, he is automatically in violation of the residence law, even though Shuafat is a borderline case: it belongs to Jerusalem municipal jurisdiction but receives services from the PA.
A veritable mess.
The judge's decision: There are grounds for remand extension, but since the report is confidential, the judge did not specify the length of the interrogations. They can also be conducted simultaneously. Shaur is to be detained for only 11 days, until 17.7.11 at 17:00.

Judge: Avshalom Meushar
Defense: Madhat Hamamra
Defendants: Saad Ahmed Ibrahim Alzaoul, 17.5 years old and Ayoub Ahmed
Ibrahim Alzaoul, 14. They are brothers from the village Hussan. The older brother is very short and even though he has an incipient beard, looks stunted (due to poor living conditions?)
The parents were present in court. The father told Hava that 40 boys from Hussan had been incriminated and charged with throwing rocks.
Charge: throwing objects with the intent to hurt, and throwing rocks on a road "during the month of August or thereabout, in Hussan or thereabout" (exact quote from the indictment).
The attorney requests a postponement until next Tuesday in order to Xerox the investigation material and prepare for the hearing. Apparently such an indictment [without mention of date or place where the alleged crime was committed] is admissible in this court. Is such an indictment admissible in an court inside Israel as well??

 

Translation: Marganit W.

We came to observe the trial of Mahmoud Waja Muhammad Tamimi, 14 years old from Nabi Salah, detained since 12.4.11.

Hava Halevi's Report:

Courtroom 2
Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara

As usual, a bureaucratic mess: no dockets to be found anywhere. The interpreter we approached claimed he had posted the lists earlier and promised to give us copies. He did not; hence we have no ID numbers.
At any given moment, three or four attorneys were talking to the judge. Files were brought in, detainees came in, in pairs or triplets, handcuffed together; they left the court without our being able to follow the cases.
Interpreters walked in and out, as did security guards and GSS officers, and family members who always sit in the last row conversed with the detainees during breaks and hearings.

Occasionally, the interpreter translated some phrases…
 

Mahmud Tamimi is a small, fair skinned boy who is accused of throwing rocks. His hearing was no different: Atty. Samara spoke with the judge and with the prosecutor, who at the same time spoke with several other attorneys. After a few minutes, he left with a document presumably setting a new date for the hearing.

Atty. Samara also represented Firas Halil Yussuf  Badran, age 20, from Qalandiya
Refugee Camp, who is accused of possessing combat materiel and weapons. He was in detention for 17 months, released 2 months ago, then arrested again. The attorney told us that his client was clearly seen on a cassette holding a Molotov cocktail.

The verdict reflected the self-righteousness and paternalistic attitude of the judge. She imposed 10 months of jail time, 8 of them suspended sentence for a prior conviction, plus 18 months suspended sentence for 5 years, 3 months suspended sentence for entering
Israel illegally and a 2000 shekel fine or 2 month in jail.

Here is what she said:
In the previous sentence the court showed consideration, but the defendant did not use this opportunity (opportunity for what? Was he offered a scholarship to an elite university?) and repeated the offense. He is older than his partners in crime. The others admitted their guilt and showed remorse, whereas he did not assume responsibility (i.e., admit guilt).
Atty. Samara queried the father's claim that his son owns an oven near the checkpoint, and that's why he was captured nearby; the son was caught on camera. The attorney agreed with the judge's reckoning of the penalty.

Salah Hamamra Mehusan, 18.5 years old, accused of throwing objects.
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara.
Salah was arrested a week ago. Friends of the family, not his parents, are present in court.
We asked why the parents were not there and were told that there is a hearing every week and they cannot come each time. This is strange considering Salah was arrested only a week ago and this is the first hearing in his case.
The hearing is rescheduled for 25.7.11.

Courtroom 3
Judge: Meir Lakhan
Prosecutor: Lieut. Mughira Sarhan
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati
 

Muhammad Ahmed Ganimat, ID. 852724624
Charge: attacking a policeman
The prosecution requests extending the detention by 3 days to prepare the charge sheet.
The case involves a demonstration in the settlement of Karmei Zur. The army declared the area a closed military zone, but Muhammad did not leave the area, even though he was aware of the injunction. He resisted arrest and the soldiers had to use 'reasonable force' to arrest him.

[In my experience, 'reasonable force' means brutal violence, but who defines
'reasonable force'? Reasonable according to whose definition?]
The defense requested alternative to detention, meaning releasing the man until his trial. The prosecution cites a precedent. The defense rejects the analogy between the two cases and cites another precedent.

But what is interesting is what happened during the demonstration. The defendant was
arrested together with two Swedish (female) activists, who were also charged with attacking an officer. One is claimed to have thrown the officer to the ground and kicked him. The court found her guilty of attacking an officer but deemed her not dangerous, and so she was not sent to jail. In our case the man took part in a demonstration protesting the
theft of the land of his village. He has no prior conviction, the attack
was not serious and there are alternatives to 'detention until the conclusion of the proceedings': he could be removed from the contested area and he could be ordered to report to the police on demonstration days (Saturday).
The defense added that the defendant's sister has leukemia and needs her brother to accompany her on a trip to Jordan for three days.
So what do have here? Two Swedish women and a Palestinian who participated in a demonstration against land grab. The Swedes were released - one on her own recognizance, the other at a Magistrate Court in Jerusalem, and Muhammad who in addition is accused of infringing on a closed military zone.
Decision: remand extension of 3 days to complete the indictment until 30.6.11.
The defense plans to appeal. It will be interesting to follow up.

Mili Mass's report:
 

Judge: Yair Nehorai
Defense: Tarek Bargout

Salah Abu Garbiya, age 27, was arrested 8 days ago accused of being an accomplice in the murder of two men (fathers) in Anata a year ago. The defendant's alibi is being investigated. A GSS interrogator claims the alibi is not credible: the witness who saw the defendant somewhere else at the time of the crime is accused of being an accomplice. The judge instructs the attorney not to try to disprove the prosecution's claim at this stage because the investigation is still on; he should elicit from the defendant the names of other witnesses who can support his claim. The defendant says he has already supplied the interrogators with many names, which they ignored. He mentions 4 more people who, he claims, saw him elsewhere at the time he is alleged to have been in Anata, supposedly
committing a murder.
The prosecution failed to supply a track record of phone calls required for checking an alibi. The prosecutor requests remand extension of 15 days to complete the investigation. A ten-day extension is agreed upon, to enable the investigators to check the witnesses supplied by the defendant and to present the phone records.
The discussion of the alibi will continue on 7.7.11 before a remand judge.

Atty. Haled Al Araj represented Ahmad Suleiman Abu Mafrah, age 19.
Charge: throwing rocks on two occasions: two years ago and a year ago.
As for the 2-year old charge, the defense says that the defendant was 17 years old at the time. Since then he has changed the course of his life. Detention will interrupt his training at a Police Academy in Egypt.

As for the one-year old charge, the defense claims that he was already residing in Egypt at the time.
It transpires that the defense is wrong, and that "a year ago" the defendant was still in Israel. But then, the attorney claims, he was studying for his matriculation exam and unlikely to participate in rock throwing.

Once again, the judge stepped out of his role of arbitrator (as is common in Israeli practice) and asked the prosecution to reconsider its position, adding that even though the charge is serious, "a year ago" is too imprecise. The charge refers to a rock throwing by a group of people, which makes it difficult to identify the defendant. In addition, the defendant has turned a new leaf, intending to become a law- abiding citizen. The judge urged the prosecution to reach an agreement, whereupon both sides left the court.
In a phone conversation later, Atty. Al Araj told me that no agreement had been struck with the prosecution. The two sides returned to the court, and the defense insisted that the defendant could not have participated in rock throwing a year ago because he was studying for his exams; he got excellent grades, which allowed him to enroll in the studies program he is in now.
The judge released the defendant. 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Hagit’s report

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: ?

 

22 arraignment cases are in the docket.

The charges – by order of prevalence: throwing objects, membership and activity in an unlawful organization, exit from “the region” without permit, and others.

 

Fadel Tamimi – Case No. 2697/11

(See earlier report from 28.4.11).

Fadel was released on bail on Monday, 16.5.11.

Attorney Lymor Goldstein has not yet received the investigation material from the prosecution; this includes a videocassette, which forms the basis of the evidence. The defense requests a postponement.

The next hearing is set for 27.7.11 at 9:30 AM.

 

Abbas Abdel Karim Diab Saada – Case No. 2707/11

Defense attorney Munther Abu Ahmed presents a plea bargain reached with the prosecution: two charges will be expunged and the defendant will admit to two out of the four charges in the indictment. The remaining charges are: breaking into a car in French Hill (Jerusalem) and an attempt to steal it; entry into Givat-Zeev (Jerusalem) without a permit.

The defendant  expresses remorse, which prompts the judge to say: “I don’t believe you. This is what you said on the last 4 or 5 occasions.”  It turns out that in 2002 the defendant was sentenced to 8 months in jail, and in 2003 he repeated the offenses and was sentenced by the Magistrate Court in Jerusalem to 6 months. He went to jail again, when a suspended sentence was put into effect.

The judge scoffs at the claim that the illegal entry into Israel was presented as a search for work, when in fact it was carried out in order to commit a property violation. The judge turns to us (the observers) saying: Write it down: “for reasons of livelihood…”

Sentence: 91 days in jail plus a stiff suspended sentence: 24 months for 3 years (for break-in and car theft). I was unable to hear if the suspended sentence includes the illegal entry into Israel [H.S.]

 

Iyad Raed Hatib – Case No. 2877/11. A boy of barely 15, accused of throwing rocks. He has been detained for 12 days and shows signs of having been beaten.

(see earlier report from 8.5.11)

Since the defendant is a minor, the trial before Justice Fleischman is conducted behind closed doors. The judge decides to release him to house arrest under the supervision of his mother and another person. There are also heavy sums to be posted as bail.

Implementation of the decision is postponed because the prosecution plans to appeal.

 

Naji Majed Ribhi Arar – Case No. 2546/11

(see earlier reports from 10.4.11 and 28.4.11)

At the defense’s request arraignment is set for 22.6.11 in Justice Fleischman’s court.

 

Three additional detainees represented by Atty. Lymor Goldstein (see earlier report from 28.4.11) will be arraigned before Justice Fleischman:

 

Fathi Hamdalla Arar – Case No. 2753/11

Muhammad Kassem Arar – Case No. 2754/11

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman – Case No. 2698/11

 

Courtroom 3 – Court of Appeal

Judge: Nissim Sarousi

Prosecutor: Dvir Peleg

 

Atty. Muhammad Aabed appealed the administrative detention of a 27-year old detainee, married and father of a baby, who was arrested a month ago.

The defense argued: the detainee is haunted by his past: he has been detained 4 times before. The last time he was released form administrative detention was two years ago. In each case the charge was membership and activity in an illegal organization. In his youth he belonged to an organization, and since then he has been unable to shake off the label. Today, the defense claims, the area is governed by the PA and people it considers undesirable are reported to the Israeli authorities.

After his last release, the man got married and opened a store. Suddenly, he was again arrested. The GSS forces people who have rehabilitated themselves to return to their past lives.

The prosecutor moves to reschedule the appeal and maintain the detention order. He gives no reasons.

The detainee tells the judge: I used to belong to the Islamic Jihad, but I left the organization, just like Ariel Sharon who left the Likud…

________________________

 

Ofra’s report

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Ilya Theorody

 

Tarek Shaheen – Case No. 2605/11, suspected of membership and activity in an illegal organization, 19 years old, from Daheisha refugee camp in Bethlehem.

Tarek was arrested on 7.4.11at 3 AM at his home. His father told us that his son is a high school graduate, enrolled at the university and that this is his first arrest.

20 soldiers took part in the arrest: four entered the house, awoke the entire family (in English) and ordered them not to say a word and not to resist, informing them they had come to arrest Tarek. The family watched in silence as their son was arrested and taken out into the dark. Tarek was held for a few days at the police station, then transferred to Ofer [Military detention camp].  

10 other youngsters from Daheisha were arrested that night and are still in custody.

According to the father, the youngsters paraded with flags in the camp and were later incriminated. The father claims that the Israeli army routinely raids Daheisha and Bethlehem several times a week.

Security in Area A is under Palestinian jurisdiction.  The occupation, however, seems to breach all borders, written agreements and international conventions. This is evident from soldiers’ testimonies in “Breaking the Silence”.

The hearing was rescheduled for 23.5.11 due to changes in defense attorneys.

 

Ali Kamal Hoarin – Case No. 1240/11, a young man from Dahariya who has been in detention for 4 months on charges of “preparing/throwing/laying of a bomb” (actually a kind of flare, according to the prosecutor’s explanation).

The detainee’s father is in court, ready to testify, but in the end the defense cancels his appearance in order to save time. I attended only part of the hearing, in which Ali was interrogated first by the defense, then by the prosecution.

According to his testimony, he had a [entrance to Israel] permit and was working in Mishor Adumin at a solar heating plant. He used to sleep there, going home once a month for a couple of days or for a weekend. He worked from 7 AM to 4 PM, rested for 2 hours, then worked from 6 PM to midnight, as well as on Saturday nights. From his answers to the prosecutor it was evident that Ali denies the allegation (which refer to August and October 2010), claiming that most of the time he was absent from the village, and when he came home he spent his time with his family and rested. The prosecutor tried to shake this alibi.

I am not sure how the hearing ended, but it is clear to me that the young man was exploited under disgraceful conditions in a settlers’ plant.

Moreover, I checked in the Yellow Pages and found “Barsheshet” factory in Mishor Adumim (P. 121), which advertises itself as a patriotic “blue and white” establishment.

Recent data by the Palestinian Statistics Bureau show a high level of unemployment among young people, as well as a large number of Palestinians working in Israel and in the settlements. These data shed light on the problem (and also on the case of Abas Saada, who is accused of a break-in).

I reported this to a journalist as well as to “B’tselem”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

morning and afternoon sessions.

On Thursdays there are mostly remand extensions at Ofer. Sometimes urgent hearings are conducted too.

Today the compound was half empty. Only 3 courtrooms were operating

We attended two hearings in Courtroon 2 presided by Justice Major Amir Dahan.

 

One case was of a Palestinian staying illegally in Israel. It is the usual story: the defendant lives in Beit Nabala. There is no work there, so he tried to find work in Beit Hanina, where he was caught being an “illegal sojourner”.

 

Timor Matur, ID 853743391 -Case No. 2069/11– remand extension for 4 days.

The prosecution moves for detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

Oudai Tamimi,ID 8537009343– Case No. 2068/11, from Nabi Salah.

For some reason, the hearing was postponed. The charge is throwing rocks.

 

In Courtroom 5, presided by Justice Major Etty Adar, all cases are remand extensions.

 

Rami Daraj, ID 854342573, 17 years old, is charged with throwing Molotov cocktails (4 years ago). The defense moves to release his client on bail.

The defendant’s mother protests that there is no reason to detain her son.

The judge answers her politely.

Rami, too, is allowed to speak. He claims the policemen beat him during the interrogation, forcing him to accept the charges.

 

In one case the attorney did not show up. The judge was ready to release the suspect, but when the latter said he had no money for the bail, she said, “So you’ll remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.”

 A hearing for the examination of the bail was set for 7.4.11. The judge also allowed the suspect one phone call to his family to arrange his release on bail.

 

After the break, at 14:00, we attended the hearing in Courtroom 1 we had actually come for:

the case of Bassam Tamimi, 44, ID 959225640, Case No 2058/11 - from Nabi Salah.

Bassam is a key figure in the popular struggle against the separation wall and against the occupation, and together with Naji Tamimi (who is also in detention) organizes the struggle in his village.

(See article by Amira Haas on 27.3.11)

Bassam Tamimi was incriminated (among others) by the child Islam Dar Ayoub.

(See report on Islam’s interrogation)

 

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbronn

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

 

There were about 20 people in the audience: family members, many diplomats, intellectuals, Anarchist Against the Fence and us.

(See Press Release by Popular Struggle Committee)

 

Since the indictment was submitted only today, the defense requested postponement to study the material. The defense also requested video-cassettes from the prosecution.

This is a very serious indictment, which involves incitement.

(For details see indictment in Hebrew)

 

Decision: the case is postponed to Sunday 10.4.11 for review by a detention judge.

 

 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

“We are impoverished, bereft of everything

We have lost our image, daughter, dignity,

With these gray, denuded faces

We go on trial, upon this land…”

("Nathan Alterman, “On Stony Land” from “The Joy of the Poor”)

 

The main actor on the court’s stage today was the abject destitution of the Palestinians. We saw an embodiment of the Talmudic phrase: “A poor man is like a dead man”. Poverty was written large on the faces of six brothers – all caught staying illegally in Israel – who sat huddled together on the bench. We also heard the voice – proud and cynical – of Jamal Amira, the father of Salam from Ni’ilin, the girl who photographed the shooting of Ashraf Abu Rahme as he lay bound on the floor. [Ashraf is the brother of the late Jawaher and Bassam from Bil’in]. Jamal described two and a half years of hardship and misery with no income. Is this how the system retaliates against the photographer who taken those pictures?

(see article re Jamal Amira)

 

Judge: Lieu.-Col. Shmuel Kedar

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Ashhar Erez

Defense: Atty. Mahmud Jabarin

 

Defendants: 6 Ganimat brothers, aged 20-35: Munzer, Mudar, Mustafa, Muaman, Muhammad, Maan. Cases: 5400/10 - 5405/10

 

The six brothers come from the village of Surif. They have been in detention for three weeks for “leaving the area without a permit”. No family member was present in court. The six sat dejected and silent and did not exchange a word. The defense presented a letter from the mayor of Surif describing the economic woes of the Ganimat family, exacerbated  by the death of the father a year and a half ago. There are 13 siblings in the family, some are married with kids, others are high school and college students. Since the father’s death, the six defendants have supported the family by working in construction in Israel.

The brothers worked in Bet Shemesh and lived on the construction site. Every other weekend they would go home. Three weeks ago, they were captured by the police as they crossed the border circumventing Al-Jaba Checkpoint (near Hussan). The prosecution demanded a harsh, deterrent punishment for the prolonged violation. The defense stressed the harsh economic situation, adding that sixty other violators were captured with the six brothers, yet only they were detained. Beside, the police made no attempt to arrest the employer who collaborated in the offense. Most of all, it turns out that the whole world – including the judge - knows about the mass illegal border crossings by Palestinians, on a route dubbed “Workers Road”. The police and the army turn a blind eye, as the judge himself pointed out in the sentence, based on the personal experience of “someone who knows the terrain.” All this speaks to a selective, arbitrary attitude by the police.

 

Thus, this time the judge did not accede to the prosecutor’s harsh and exorbitant demand when the latter argued: “economic problems do not justify breaking the law”. It seemed to me that the judge, too, could not face the sorry sight of the six brothers, or perhaps he was guided by the legal principal of “Necessity Defense” [Section 34/11 of the Penal Code]. Citing “no intention to carry out a terrorist act”, the judge sentenced them to a uniform punishment of 30 days in jail, 3 months suspended sentence for a year, and NO FINE. Beaming kindly at the expressionless defendants, the judge explained that the sentence is light and the prosecution “might appeal”. He asked them to refrain from breaking the law in the future. The prosecutor, in a knee-jerk reaction, leapt from his seat and vowed to appeal.

 

Judge: Lieut. Col. Shmuel Kedar

Prosecutor: Lieut. Ashhar Erez

Defense: Gaby Lasky

 

Defendant: Jamal Amira – Case No. 3767/08

The defendant is released on 7500-shekel bail after a month’s detention that occurred two and a half years ago. He is charged with “attacking and disturbing a soldier”. We met him before the hearing. He is a grown man, looking respectable and well spoken. 130 dunams were confiscated from his land in order to construct the “separation wall,” thus depriving him of livelihood as a farmer, which is his primary occupation. The second assault was when his permit to enter Israel was taken away from him after his daughter took the sensational photo. As an aluminum and glass merchant, his income depends on being able to enter Israel. The result was that for 28 months he was unable to earn an income (supporting 11 persons).

Poverty finally got the better of Jamal. Having fought for his innocence for two and a half years, he finally capitulated and accepted the charges in a plea bargain. According to the agreement, he was sentenced to jail time coinciding with his detention; instead of suspended sentence he got a suspended fine, plus a 4500-shekel fine. In addition, the judge recommended to the “appropriate authorities” to rescind the police injunction against granting him a permit to enter Israel.

Let’s hope this is carried out.

Jamal is someone who can look his family and friends straight in the eye. Can the system that humiliates and abuses him do the same? What will future generations of Israelis say about their fathers’ conduct?

 

Judge: Lieut.–Col. Eran Laufman

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

 

Defendant:Salah Hawaja, a medic from Ni’ilin  -Case No.  4590/08

The defendant is released on bail. His trial has been going on for two years with no end in sight, since the hearing is postponed due to Justice Dahan’s involvement with another case. Prosecution Witness No. 5 was “apprehended that night”, according to the prosecutor, and because of the postponement he will be released under restricting conditions (see earlier report).

 

Upon coming in, we met two defendants who were released on bail and had come from home. They told us about the circumstances of their arrest and of their trial, but they adamantly forbade us to publish their case for fear that they and their families might suffer as a result. It is important to note – without giving any details – that they looked genuinely fearful of retaliation by the authorities.