Protest Against the Israeli Military is Itself Illegal Court Rules
The arrest and conviction, on trumped charges, of Abdallah Abu Rahmah, for organising ‘illegal demonstrations’ [i.e. anything the military doesn’t like!] demonstrates that far from wanting to eradicte ‘terrorism’, the Israeli state is determined to prevent all peaceful opposition to its brutal occupation. Thus it leaves Palestinians no option but to resort to violence, whence Israel then declares that it will ‘never negotiate with terrorists.’
Apart from ritual noises of protest, the European Union and the United State will do nothing, just as they did nothing over the murderous attack on the Mavi Marmara. But this attack on an organiser of peaceful protester, no different in its own way from how the British treated Ghandi (in fact it is far worse because the British did negotiate with him) demonstrates the duplicity of the Israeli state.
Tony Greenstein
Israel tries to lock up Abu Rahmah for two years for disturbing the “peace”
September 14th, 2010 | by Jesse Bacon
The trial of Bil’in protest organizer, Abdallah Abu Rahmah will renew this Wednesday, after his conviction of incitement and organizing illegal demonstrations was harshly criticized by the EU, the Spanish Parliament and human rights organizations.
Abdallah Abu Rahmah’s trial will resume on Wednesday, as it will enter the sentencing phase, in which the prosecution will argue its case for a harsh sentencing, and is expected to ask for a sentence exceeding two years imprisonment. The defense will argue Abu Rahmah had already been devoid of his freedom for too long, and should be released immediately.
Abu Rahmah, the coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, was arrested last year by soldiers who raided his home at the middle of the night and was subsequently indicted before an Israeli military court on unsubstantiated charges that included stone-throwing and arms possession. Abu Rahmah was cleared of both the stone-throwing and arms possession charges, but convicted of organizing illegal demonstrations and incitement. 9 months after his arrest, Abu Rahmah is still kept on remand.
An exemplary case of the way the Israeli military legal system in the West Bank exists for the purpose of silencing of legitimate political dissent, Abu Rahmah’s conviction was subject to harsh international criticism. The EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, expressed her deep concern “that the possible imprisonment of Mr Abu Rahma is intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to protest[…]“, after EU diplomats attended all hearings in Abu Rahmah’s case. Ashton’s statement was followed by one from the Spanish Parliament.
Renowned South African human right activist, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, called on Israel to overturn Abu Rahmah’s conviction on behalf of the Elders, a group of international public figures noted as elder statesmen, peace activists, and human rights advocates, brought together by Nelson Mandela. Members of the Elders, including Tutu, have met with Abu Rahmah on their visit to Bil’in prior to his arrest.
International human rights organizations Amnesty International condemned Abu Rahmah’s conviction as an assault on the right to freedom of expression. Human Rights Watch denounced the conviction, pronouncing the whole process “an unfair trial”.
Legal Background
Abu Rahmah, the coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, was acquitted of two out of the four charges brought against him in the indictment – stone-throwing and a ridiculous and vindictive arms possession charge. According to the indictment, Abu Rahmah collected used tear-gas projectiles and bullet cases shot at demonstrators, with the intention of exhibiting them to show the violence used against demonstrators. This absurd charge is a clear example of how eager the military prosecution is to use legal procedures as a tool to silence and smear unarmed dissent.
The court did, however, find Abu Rahmah guilty of two of the most draconian anti-free speech articles in military legislation: incitement, and organizing and participating in illegal demonstrations. It did so based only on testimonies of minors who were arrested in the middle of the night and denied their right to legal counsel, and despite acknowledging significant ills in their questioning.
The court was also undeterred by the fact that the prosecution failed to provide any concrete evidence implicating Abu Rahmah in any way, despite the fact that all demonstrations in Bil’in are systematically filmed by the army.
Under military law, incitement is defined as “The attempt, verbally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a way that may disturb the public peace or public order” (section 7(a) of the Order Concerning Prohibition of Activities of Incitement and Hostile Propaganda (no.101), 1967), and carries a 10 years maximal sentence.
See Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee
Sentencing Phase on Wednesday
