Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Lawfare
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
University of Haifa
U of Haifa clinic against the State Prosecutor and As'ad Ghanem speaks of close connection between Adalah and the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee

Prisoners Rights and Reentry Clinic at the U of Haifa is run by Adv. Abeer Baker abeer.baker@gmail.com http://law.haifa.ac.il/clinics/clinic3/maine.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=838429&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&title='The%20Arabs%20are%20part%20of%20the%20society,%20too%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

The Arabs are part of the society, too 
 
By As'ad Ghanem 
 
 
Adalah recently initiated and published its proposal for a "Democratic
Constitution," after years of discussion of certain fundamental questions
both here and abroad, and particularly among Israel's Arab minority.

The Adalah initiative can be seen against the backdrop of two moves
undertaken in recent years by civil and political institutions associated
with Israel's two main population groups: Jews and Arabs. These moves
reflect a dissatisfaction with the existing constitutional situation and a
desire to change it.

On the Jewish side, as a continuation of the process by which the country's
various Basic Laws are legislated, the Israel Democracy Institute oversaw
an extensive discussion about the need for a constitution. Its campaign was
accompanied by a call for "a constitution by agreement." Parallel to that,
the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, headed until last year
by Likud MK Michael Eitan, began discussions aimed at legislating a
national constitution - also "with broad agreement." 
 
 
However, the deliberations and the proposals clearly ignored the basic
needs of groups that are subordinated in Israeli society. In effect, these
were attempts to anchor the existing situation of the regime, the status of
the citizen and of citizenship, the Jewish-democratic state and Jewish
superiority in all areas of life, in a constitution that would serve those
groups and citizens who benefit from the existing situation.

These proposals by Jewish groups ignored the needs of the country's Arab
public, and the claim that they were represented in the preliminary
discussions turned out to have been incorrect. Apparently the initiating
institutions consulted with elements deemed convenient to them among
Israel's Arab citizenry, while it avoided bringing into the discussion the
sole body authorized to collectively represents the Arab community: the
Higher Arab Monitoring Committee in Israel. Neither were Arab Knesset
members invited to participate in these discussions, as would have been
appropriate.

At the same time, the monitoring committee, together with the National
Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel, initiated
and recently published a docum'ent entitled "The Future Vision of the
Palestinian Arabs in Israel." The vision embodied in this docume'nt includes
a clear outline of the changes desired by the country's Arabs with respect
to the political, social, cultural and economic questions facing Israeli
society as a whole, and the country's Arab citizens in particular. This
vision seeks not only a change in the minority's situation, but also
aspires to free the Jewish majority of the feelings of temporariness and of
being in exile in the region, and to transform it into an integral part of
the neighborhood, at the same time it firms up Israel's existence on the
principles of individual and collective equality, and on democratic values
that are fundamental and not only procedural.

The close connection between Adalah and the Higher Arab Monitoring
Committee - a partnership that has included representatives of the Arab
leadership who deal with a broad spectrum of issues that come up in
Israel's courts - makes the Adalah proposal to a large extent one that
faithfully represents the Arab public in Israel. By means of this proposal,
the Arab community is determining the outlines of the constitution that is
acceptable to it, and preventing attempts to legislate a discriminatory one
by making these attempts illegitimate both in the eyes of the Arab
community and in terms of international law.

The time has come for the Jewish majority as well to make its voice heard
on the issue, in a clear and unambiguous way, and to place equality and
democracy above all.

The writer is the head of the government and political philosophy
department at the University of Haifa, and a member of the team that
prepared the "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel"
doc'ument.

 

=========================================================================================================

http://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/pr.php?file=09_09_22

NEWS UPDATE
22 September 2009

New Adalah Report Reveals how Israeli Police, Prosecutor, GSS and Courts Suppressed Protests by Arab Citizens of Israel against Military Attacks on Gaza

Nine Years after the October 2000 Events, Demonstrators Suppressed in the Same Way

(Haifa, Israel) Today, 22 September 2009, Adalah published a report which exposes the ways in which the Israeli law enforcement agencies responded to the wave of protests by Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel opposing the Israel’s military attacks on the Gaza Strip from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. The report reveals how the police, the prosecutors, the General Security Service (GSS or the “Shabak”), the courts and even certain academic institutions acted to use arrest and imprisonment as quick and easy tools to suppress protests by opponents of the military aggression, crushing the rights of Arab and some Jewish citizens of Israel to express their dissent. The new report is entitled “Prohibited Protest: How the Law Enforcement Authorities Limited the Freedom of Expression of Opponents to the Military Attacks on Gaza”.

Information gathered by the report’s authors, Adalah Attorneys Abeer Baker and Rana Asali, indicates that: 832 people were detained by police during the military attacks; 34% of the detainees were minors under the age of 18.  80% of all of those arrested were detained until the end of the proceedings against them, 54% of whom were minors. All of those arrested from the Northern District of Israel were detained until the end of the proceedings; 94% arrested from the Jerusalem district were detained until the end of the proceedings, while no person from the Tel Aviv district was remanded. Predominantly Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians with permanent residency live in the Northern District and Jerusalem, respectively, while Tel Aviv is home overwhelming to Jewish citizens of the state. 

The findings indicate that the law enforcement authorities adopted a “no tolerance” policy towards demonstrators opposed to the military attacks in almost every location in which protests were held, even in places that did not witness any violence. This policy was manifested by the dispersal of demonstrations, police violence against demonstrators, and the systematic arrests and detention of demonstrators.

Despite the legality of the demonstrations, the police illegally prevented and interfered with them. They launched a campaign of mass arrests, which affected many, even those who did nothing other than be present at the protest. The police acted against the protests as breaches of the peace and law and order. The only reason behind these steps was the presence of some protestors who supported Israel’s attacks on Gaza in the vicinity of protesters opposed to it.  

The prosecution and police transformed each demonstration into a threat against the security of the state. Accordingly, any court decision ordering the release of a detainee was appealed by the State Prosecutor’s Office and all the appeals submitted were granted. In some cases, the police exaggerated the circumstances of the arrest and the protest in order to justify the continued detention and removal of the demonstrator from his/her environment.  The majority of indictments issued listed charges pertaining to participation in prohibited gatherings, rioting\disturbance and assaulting a police officer. A very small number of indictments related to posing a threat on peoples’ lives.

The courts indirectly participated in the suppression of the protests. From the court decisions cited in the report, it clearly emerges how the courts set aside the principles of detailed individualized examination, which distinguishes criminal law from other law, preferring to detain the demonstrators sweepingly and indiscriminately. The courts claimed in their decisions that the offense is a “violation stemming from the particular time” and “times have not changed yet” (i.e. the offense mentioned is specific to the war period which is an extraordinary time). The court decisions did not mention the reason for the anger of the protestors: “The hundreds of dead, the injured, the destruction, the tragedy and the damage the Israeli army brought upon Gaza’s residents are not mentioned anywhere in any remand decision. The detainees were presented as lawbreakers and criminals who should be treated harshly due to ‘the situation,’ unconnected from the political climate of their protest.”

For example, in the Nazareth Magistrate Court, the report cites two identical decisions copied from each other, although they refer to four different detainees, who were defended by four different lawyers. Further, in violation of all domestic and international laws, and with the Supreme Court’s support, the authorities dealt with minors similar to adults, without any distinction between them.

Specific instructions were issued to deal with the protests and the detainees, however, the report notes that the police refused to reveal these orders. Similar patterns were followed during the events of “October 2000”, in which the prosecution allocated substantial resources and efforts to restrict the detainees, while failing to investigate the killings of the thirteen unarmed Arab demonstrators and who is responsible for killing them.

Adalah stresses that the methods of suppression of the wave of protest during the military attacks on Gaza, as reflected in the conduct of the police, prosecutors, GSS and the courts, is similar to the conduct of law enforcement during the events of October 2000. Importantly however, in October 2000, 13 people were killed by the police, while in the recent demonstrations, this did not happen.

The “Shabak” was also a partner in silencing the protestors. The “Shabak” summoned dozens of political activists to investigation. These activists informed Adalah that the GSS asked political questions and threatened them with prosecution as well as attributing any crime committed in the demonstrations to them, even if they did not personally commit it. The Attorney General supported the “Shabak’s” involvement, interrogation approach and exerted threats, claiming that it was done in order to appease tempers.

The academia in Israel, as evidenced in the report, did not oppose the arrest campaign; on the contrary, it was also involved in the harassment of protestors. Academic institutions, such as Haifa University, accentuated the national pride evoked by the military attacks, by posting supportive signs on their buildings and through paid advertisements in the newspapers. At the same time, the university did not hesitate in organizing the entry of dozens of police officers, infantry and cavalry, to the university campus, in order to violently disperse the Arab student protestors, who demanded a stop to classes for several hours in protest against the military attacks. Furthermore, the university has not condemned the excessive violence and senseless arrests of the students.

Overall, the report shows that the legal authorities all joined together and applied the concept of “no tolerance, no leniency”. People who did not have any criminal record, found themselves imprisoned for prolonged periods for voicing their protest against the brutal, oppressive military attacks.

The UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (“the Goldstone Committee”), which investigated the breaches of international criminal, humanitarian and human rights law in the Gaza Strip during the military aggression and released its report on 15 September 2009, extensively cites information from Adalah’s report. The UN report devoted a full chapter to the suppression of protests by Israel.

Executive Summery Report
Full Report (Hebrew)

 

=============================================================================================================

 http://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/pr.php?file=09_08_26_1_9

Adalah's Newsletter
Volume 63, August 2009

Adalah and Haifa University Prisoners’ Rights Clinic: State Prosecutor is Systematically Violating the Rights of Prisoners to Fair Trial Procedures

 On 23 August 2009, Adalah in cooperation with the Prisoners’ Rights and Rehabilitation Clinic at the University of Haifa sent a letter to the Minister of Justice

, the Attorney General and the State Prosecutor, alleging ongoing violations of the right of prisoners incarcerated in Israeli prisoners to fair and just trial procedures in their petitions against the Israel Prison Service (IPS).

 

In the letter, Attorney Abeer Baker states that during her work at Adalah and the Prisoners’ Rights and Rehabilitation Clinic she has received dozens of letters from prisoners that reveal the systematic violation and disdain of the State Prosecutor in dealing with petitions filed by the prisoners serving their sentences. By filing the petitions, the prisoners in general aim to improve the conditions of their confinement and remove restrictions imposed on them by the IPS.

Adalah argued in the letter that the most significant violations of the right to a fair trial is the failure of the State Prosecutor’s Office to submit timely responses to the petitions; in many cases, the responses are filed just before they enter the courtroom. In such cases, prisoners are unable to study the response adequately before the hearing or to seek appropriate legal consultation, which is critical since most of the prisoners petition the court alone and not through a lawyer. Prisoners who do not have a good grasp of Hebrew frequently have to go to court without having read the response to their petition. In such cases, they are faced with two choices: either to proceed without having studied the response, or to protest to the court, knowing that the most that he or she can expect to achieve is a postponement of the hearing.

The cases also reveal that the courts and the State Prosecutor’s Office do not inform prisoners of developments in their cases or of the requests made by the State Prosecutor, such as requests for delays in submitting responses to petitions or for postponements of hearings. This situation leaves prisoners in a constant state of uncertainty regarding the status of their cases.

These violations are part of a series of restrictions imposed by the IPS. For instance, the IPS compels prisoners to submit six copies of their petitions, a demand that is difficult to comply with given the unavailability of printing or photocopying equipment. Some prisons also prevent prisoners from making more than one demand in each petition, and from submitting joint petitions, even when prisoners experience the same problem. Prisons frequently transfer prisoners’ petitions to the courts late, despite a law stipulating that they do so without delay.

Attorney Abeer Baker argued that the fact that the petitioner is a prisoner should have no bearing on the constitutional rights that are granted. The State Prosecutor is therefore obliged to provide information to the petitioning prisoner about all developments related to his case, and to submit his response to the petition a significant time prior to the date of the court hearing, as he does in other cases. Failing to follow these procedures strips the principle of a fair trial and fair trial procedures of all content and flagrantly violates prisoners’ human and constitutional rights.

Attorney Baker therefore demanded that the State Prosecutor be compelled to provide a response to petitions filed by prisoners and the various demands contained therein at least seven days prior to the date of the court hearing, to allow them to read and study it. She further demanded that the State Prosecutor inform prisoners of all legal developments related to their cases.

 

 
 

 

Back to " University of Haifa"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 243677989Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
    blueweb