Ofer - Release on Bail, Detention until conclusion of proceedings

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email
Tamar Goldschmid, Aya Kanyuk, Nitza Aminov (reporting)

Translation: Marganit W.


In Justice Lt. Col. Hanan Rubinstein’s court the hearing deals with a request for detention until conclusion of the proceedings in the case of

Shaker Abed Alwahab Shaker Hamamra – ID 854768751

Defense: Atty. Munzer Abu Ahmad

Shaker Hamamra lives in Hussan. Not far from his house soldiers found a Molotov cocktail with the defendant’s fingerprints on it. A statement by Witness No. 1 from 26.8.14 states that the investigator told the defendant that his fingerprints were on the Molotov cocktail, and asked for his comment. The investigator states that the defendant confirmed that those might be his fingerprints, but it could equally be that he drank juice from the bottle and then someone else used it.

The prosecutor agrees that this is circumstantial evidence, but there is a difference in significance between a stationary and a moving object.

In the end this sophistry did not change the judge’s decision.

My friends and I wondered how they tracked down Shaker Hamamra from a bottle that was found in a field. The answer seems to be in one sentence that the judge uttered: I am aware of the fact that the defendant has a criminal record: he was in jail for throwing rocks three years ago.

The defendant was released from jail in the “Shalit Prisoners Exchange.’

We are well aware of the constant badgering of Shalit prisoners and of the repeated attempts to put them back in jail with new charges, so that they can “complete” their sentences.

The defendant was charged with arms manufacturing: on 19.7.14 he was in possession of a Molotov cocktail. From this we deduce that Shaker has been in detention for almost two months. Perhaps the “circumstantial evidence” won’t be sufficient to indict him. And what about the time he has already served? Eventually, the judge released him under the following conditions: 3500 shekels bail and 5000 shekels personal guarantee. The prosecutor requested 72 hours to consider an appeal. He was granted 48 hours.


Hearings at the military court cover all the areas under the jurisdiction of the Civil Administrationinfo-icon. Among other things, we have witnessed Palestinians accused of violating the Nature Conservation laws.

Today I observed an appeal of a decision to confiscate Palestinian land by Efrat settlers. The appeal was initiated by “Yesh Din”. The state was represented by a private attorney hired especially for the case. I was able to attend only part of the hearing. The state attorney questioned an elderly Palestinian about how he tills the land: when do you plough, do you use a tractor or a ploughshare? What do you sow? Is it the same crop every year?

Sadly, I could not stay for the whole hearing.