The scenario that the security establishment is preparing for is threatening. The scenario envisions the security prisoners launching a hunger strike, setting fire to their cells, trying attack the guards, severing all contact with the prison authorities, refusing all visits by the Red Cross and family members, while their relatives will demonstrate outside the prisons and will enlist Israeli Arabs to the cause as well.

Israeli security officials said that the Palestinian Authority is behind the planned prisoners’ strike, which is expected to include a hunger strike and rioting in the larger prisons in Israel—similar to the strike that was held in the prisons in 2004, when the security prisoners rioted for 18 days. Israeli officials said they anticipated that the signal to launch the strike would be given in the course of the next number of weeks.

The assessment is that the Palestinian Authority will also launch a parallel “soft attack” that will involve the enlistment of Arab and other international media stations, as well as taking legal action to help shore up the prisoners’ struggle.

It will be interesting to see if the “legal actions” will tackle a major issue that has largely remained under the radar:  the 10,000 or so Palestinian prisoners are held in Israel in direct breach of international law.

On March 25, 2009, Yesh Din along with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual filed a petition to the High Court of Justice demanding that prisoners and detainees who reside in the West Bank not be held in facilities within Israel, and that arraignment hearings for such detainees also not be held in courts outside the West Bank.

The petition argues that holding Palestinian detainees in facilities located within Israel, a practice employed by Israeli authorities since 1967, violates Geneva Convention norms and infringes on detainees’ and prisoners’ right to due process, right to counsel, as well as visitation rights, as their lawyers and families are unable to meet with them.

In March 2010, following a hearing, the HCJ rejected the petition, stating that this issue was discussed and decided upon in a previous ruling. In that ruling, the HCJ refused to apply the International Humanitarian Law on this issue – and accepted the Israeli government’s position on the matter. [More here]

—-

Palestinians planning prisoners strike

Alex Fishman, Yediot, December 2 2010 [Hebrew original here and at the bottom of this post]

The security establishment is bracing for the possibility that the Palestinian security prisoners who are incarcerated in Israel will launch a general strike, which is being planned by the Palestinian Authority.

The scenario that the security establishment is preparing for is threatening. The scenario envisions the security prisoners launching a hunger strike, setting fire to their cells, trying attack the guards, severing all contact with the prison authorities, refusing all visits by the Red Cross and family members, while their relatives will demonstrate outside the prisons and will enlist Israeli Arabs to the cause as well.

Israeli security officials said that the Palestinian Authority is behind the planned prisoners’ strike, which is expected to include a hunger strike and rioting in the larger prisons in Israel—similar to the strike that was held in the prisons in 2004, when the security prisoners rioted for 18 days. Israeli officials said they anticipated that the signal to launch the strike would be given in the course of the next number of weeks.

The assessment is that the Palestinian Authority will also launch a parallel “soft attack” that will involve the enlistment of Arab and other international media stations, as well as taking legal action to help shore up the prisoners’ struggle.

Israeli officials have taken into account the possibility that the prisoners will try to have footage and reports air from within the prisons. Alongside coverage of the riots by the media, a team of lawyers working on behalf of the Palestinian Authority will lodge complaints against Israel. The complaints, which are likely to be lodged across the world and also in Jerusalem, will focus on Israel’s treatment of the prisoners during the riots and in the period leading up to them. Meanwhile, officials from the Palestinian Authority are planning on holding international conferences about the security prisoners in the coming month in Algeria and Geneva. The title of those conferences is going to be: “Israel does not honor international law.”

The assumption is that the prisoners’ strike will not only serve Palestinian public relations against Israel, but will also be an answer to the intra-Palestinian conflicts. This campaign is geared to be the PA’s answer to Hamas’s propaganda as if the Palestinian Authority is indifferent to the fate of the prisoners, as opposed to Hamas, which has been driving a hard bargain in exchange for the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

While the Palestinian Authority is nominally to be behind the strike, which is being organized by Issa Karaka, the Palestinian minister for prisoner affairs, Israeli security officials say that that is merely the fig leaf. They said that the strike is being pushed by extremists who want to heat up the conflict with Israel.

All of the plans and organizational work being done notwithstanding, it seems that the security prisoners themselves are a bit less enthusiastic about staging a strike. Many of them believe that a strike should be saved for when Israel takes away their privileges, against the backdrop of legislative efforts to worsen the incarceration conditions of the Palestinian security prisoners in what is known as the “Shalit bill.” They believe that that will provide them with a good pretext for clashing violently with the prison authorities.

A spokesman for the Prisons Service said in response to a question about possible Prisons Service preparations in anticipation of a prisoners’ strike: “The Prisons Service will not discuss that issue.”

—-

The Brigade commander won’t go

Yossi Yehoshua, Yediot, July 2 2010 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

The IDF was forced to cancel the departure of the outgoing Hebron Brigade commander, Col. Udi Ben-Moha, to study in the UK. Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that the army feared that Ben Moha would be arrested upon landing due to suspicion of involvement in war crimes in the territories.

Col. Ben Moha began his military service in the Naval Commando. After doing the officers’ course, he went to the Golani Brigade, then he was the deputy commander of the Egoz unit, after that he commanded the Netzarim sector in Gush Katif as the Shimshon Battalion commander, after which he served as the commander of a reservist brigade and formed the Sagi Brigade that operates on the Israel-Egypt border.

Recently Ben-Moha concluded his latest position as the commander of one of the most sensitive sectors in Judea and Samaria: the city of Hebron, where the level of friction between the Palestinians and the settlers is the highest.

As early as a year ago Ben-Moha worked out with his commanders that after leaving the brigade, he would study overseas. At this time the outgoing brigade commander is in the final stages of preparing for his move to London, along with his family.

But in the course of a consultation held recently in the State Attorney’s Office and among top IDF officers, concern was raised that British left wing activists or Palestinian activists were liable to ask the British authorities to issue an arrest warrant against the Israeli officer. It was therefore decided last week not to take the risk and to cancel Ben-Moha’s study trip.

Israel has discerned in recent years a worsening in the attitude to IDF officers in Europe in general, and in the UK in particular. The UK has become very problematic for officers wishing to visit, since British law makes it possible for civilians to submit a criminal complaint against people suspected of war crimes. That is why the IDF considered forbidding officers from stopping in London, even for a short stopover, on their way to another destination.

Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that last week IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Avi Benayahu went on a trip to London for PR purposes. Before his trip, the IDF held a situation assessment meeting during which concern was raised that Benayahu might encounter displays of violence during his stay in the British capital. This is because of the fact that the identity of the IDF spokesman, who often interviews because of his job to the foreign media, is known to television viewers world over. After the flotilla affair, it was even decided to place guards at  Benayahu’s home, who lives in a kibbutz in the Sharon region.

[...]

Earlier on Friday, about 250 locals and left-wing protesters were stopped by police when they attempted to march toward Jewish houses in Sheikh Jarrah. Police declared that such a march would be illegal and ordered the protesters to return to the site of the demonstration. When they refused to do so, they were pushed back by force. They then began to chant slogans criticizing the Jewish presence in the neighborhood. Eight demonstrators were detained following the incident.

The protest organizers told a very different story and backed it up with photos and video. The media, however, are not usually inclined to fact check official statements. Note how the Post did not even add “police said,” even though the correspondent was clearly not present at the incident.

There are valuable exceptions, however. Last year, Coteret followed Globes columnist Matti Golan as he demonstrated how the IDF spokesperson had become accustomed to Israeli journalists happily filling the role of stenographers. Fortuitously, also on Sunday, Yediot published photographic evidence of blatant lying by the police regarding another incident East Jerusalem incident on Friday: The running over of a teenage Palestinian protester in Ras Al-Amud by a police vehicle. Below is a  full translation of the article, with the photos at bottom.

—–

Hit and whitewash

Ronnie Shaked and Yaron Doron, Yediot, March 14 2010 [page 6; Hebrew original here]

Who really ran over the 14-year-old youth during the demonstrations that took place on Friday in Jerusalem’s Ras el-Amud neighborhood? The police contend that he was hit by a “white Subaru, evidently driven by an Arab,” but the photos shot by Yedioth Ahronoth photographer Atta Awisat expose the truth: the youth is lying underneath the tires of a police vehicle.

When rioting broke out in East Jerusalem prior to Friday morning Arab prayers, police went into action to quell the disturbances. A police vehicle traveling at high speed rushed into one of the streets of the Ras el-Amud neighborhood, in order to catch rock-throwers. En route, the vehicle hit a youth. The police in the vehicle took off in pursuit of rock-throwers, and, after detaining several of them, noticed the youth who had been hit by the vehicle’s rear wheel hobbling away on his injured leg. It later turned out that he sustained a broken foot.

The police arrested the youth, brought him to the Russian Compound and contacted his family. “Your son is under arrest and injured,” family members were told. “Come down to the station to pick him up and take him to the hospital,” the police said. The youth’s uncle, Jamil, arrived at the station. “I entered shed No. 4, and found my nephew sitting on the floor,” the uncle said yesterday. “The investigator asked me to lift him, place him on a chair and bring him into the interrogation room. I did what the policeman asked, and he allowed me to be present during questioning,” Jamil said.

During the questioning, the youth denied throwing stones. “It was a coincidence that I was on that street,” the youth said. “A white vehicle came along very fast and hit me. The police arrested me and brought me to the Russian Compound,” the youth said.

The uncle, who was not yet aware that it was a police vehicle that had hit his nephew, asked the investigator why the police hadn’t stopped the car and attempted to identify it. He claimed that the police officer said, “We were in the middle of operational activity, and during a war we’re not interested in motor vehicle accidents, but rather the mission itself.” The investigator asked the uncle to take the youth to the hospital, and said, “because he’s injured, we won’t arrest him.” According to the uncle, when he asked why the police didn’t take the youth for medical treatment, the investigator answered, We were in the middle of a skirmish, and didn’t notice that he was injured.” From the police station, the youth was taken to Hadassah Mt. Scopus Hospital. An x-ray showed that he had a broken foot, which was put in a cast.

The photos taken by the Yedioth Ahronoth photographer clearly indicate that the youth was hit by a police vehicle, but the police assert that this is not the case. According to the uncle, the police at the station told him that he was hit by “a fast-traveling white vehicle, which then fled the scene.” One detail in this description is correct: it was a white vehicle. But there’s no denying that it was a police vehicle, according to the license plate.

In an official response, the police said: “The youth, together with several other Arab youths, were throwing stones at Border Police. In his statement to the police, the youth said he was hit by a white Subaru, evidently driven by an Arab. The vehicle fled the scene of the accident. When the youth pointed out to the investigators his minor injuries, he was released for medical treatment at the hospital.” The police also say they are looking for the driver of the vehicle in question.

Yedioth Ahronoth again contacted the police, saying they had solid evidence that the youth had been, in fact, hit by a police vehicle. But police are sticking to their story that it is falsified evidence, intended to heat up an already exacerbated situation. Is the evidence faked? The photos on these pages speak for themselves.

Israeli strategy remains confused, however. Yediot reported on December 28 2009 that a limited inquiry, aimed at stemming the “political and economic tsunami” caused by the Goldstone report, would be launched “within two weeks.” The has yet to happen. A January 19 2010 report in Haaretz may help explain why: Retired Chief Justice Aharon Barak has stated that only a full-fledged commission of inquiry, with subpoena powers, would be acceptable to him. His unequivocal position is probably deterring other eminent jurists.

Apparently Israel would like to make some concrete announcement before, or along with, its official response (due apparently on February 5 2010.) Meanwhile, Israel’s advocates abroad are gearing up. A draft response to Goldstone by Alan Dershowitz has been circulating in the internet for few days. Mondoweiss publishes an excerpt, which reveals some desperation. No longer is there an attempt to deny the existence of war crimes. Rather, focus is on defense of the top brass, through the shifting of responsibility to “rogue soldiers.”

Israeli pragmatists are losing patience. In a Yediot op-ed this morning (January 20 2010; full text below) centrist author Gadi Taub after blasting Goldstone, tells the Israeli government to get a grip: Without a credible independent investigation now,  Israel will bear the full brunt of universal jurisdiction.

Time is running out

Op-ed, Gadi Taub, Yediot, January 20

International law makes it possible to prosecute Israelis who are suspected of war crimes allegedly committed in Operation Cast Lead, in courts belonging to other countries.  This option is subject to one restriction: It is valid if and only if Israel has not launched an independent investigation into the matter itself.  This option has a time limit, and time is running out.  Israel was given six months from the publication of the Goldstone report, and this period will end on March 15.

The accusations of Judge Goldstone appear to be mostly groundless.  Goldstone’s method, in which clearly biased testimonies were accepted without question or further examination, is not only unfair, but absolutely scandalous.  Goldstone himself admitted, in an interview to the American Jewish newspaper The Forward, that there was nothing in the report that would stand up as proof of a war crime in court.  Moreover, the commission acquitted Hamas of deliberately using civilians as a human shield for fighters, and did not accuse it at all of a blatant war crime: Firing rockets at civilian targets.  Instead, the report speaks about rockets fired by “armed Palestinian groups.”  This is a manipulation that omits, as commented by independent journalist Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, the entire cause of the operation against Hamas and turns Israel into an indiscriminate aggressor.

Israel erred by choosing to boycott the commission.  But its choice not to honor the terms of the international community and to launch its own investigation by an independent agency, is much more severe.  Such an agency could be a commission headed by a judge, or an inquiry by the State Comptroller’s Office.

Judging by the findings of an inquiry conducted by the IDF—the full IDF report has not yet been submitted—it will be easy to disprove Goldstone’s poorly-substantiated accusations.  Independent journalists and other commentators have already provided an abundance of testimonies demonstrating the weakness of the report.  Israel has no cause to fear such an investigation, and without it, any officer or politician who were involved in the operation or in the decisions made regarding it will be exposed to arrest and trial in foreign countries.  The future effects of this phenomenon are far-reaching: We cannot afford to have our representatives in the government and the army, the people in charge of our security, making decisions under concern for their personal freedom upon leaving Israel’s borders.

Why, in that case, has no investigation been launched?  Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak continue to oppose it.  They wish to maintain the chain of command and the accountability of the officers towards their commanders, not towards an external tribunal.  If officers feel that every order, not only a patently illegal order, requires the consent of a lawyer, the chain of command could be disrupted.

But what the chief of staff and defense minister believe to be protecting their subordinates is actually forsaking them.  An internal IDF inquiry will not succeed in protecting those who acted properly, because it does not meet the terms of an independent investigation, and the outcome will be that in future, every officer will fear to carry out orders, even completely legitimate orders, because even when he acts properly, the state forsakes him upon leaving its borders.

If war crimes were committed in Operation Cast Lead, we have a right to know about them, and their perpetrators should stand trial here in Israel.  But it is no less important that we not leave this manipulative report unanswered, and leave those who were sent to defend our security exposed to prosecution and imprisonment.  If the IDF is proud of the fact that it does not forsake its soldiers in the hands of the enemy, it should understand that we have enemies of a new kind, and they are damaging our ability to defend ourselves.

Hebron crisis

Ben Caspit, Maariv, January 8 2010 [page 2]

Israel is considering the option of not extending the mandate of the TIPH multi-national mission, which has been stationed in Hebron since the interim agreement signed between Israel and the PLO as part of the Hebron protocol in 1997.

The mandate of the force, which is composed of the representatives of six countries, is renewed every six months, and is due to be renewed at the end of the month.  Now, Israel is considering (and not for the first time) the possibility of not extending its mandate.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon visited Hebron yesterday, at the direct instructions of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in order to examine the situation on the ground.  Ayalon confirmed yesterday that the possibility of not extending the mandate was indeed being examined, and appeared realistic.  “They are exceeding their mandate,” Ayalon told Ma’ariv.  “They report cases of harassment against Palestinians, and do not deal with cases of opposite harassment.”

In addition, Israeli sources say that the extension of the mandate is supposed to be carried out in a festive ceremony with the attendance of representatives from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and TIPH, but the PA has been refusing to hold this ceremony in the past years.  “The fact that this force frequently complains against IDF soldiers and serves as infrastructure for many representatives of international organizations who focus on filing complaints against Israel and the IDF, plays a role in the Israeli idea of stopping the mandate,” an informed security source said yesterday to Ma’ariv.

Stopping the mandate of the multi-national force in Hebron could spark an international furor.  The timing, in the course of a considerable international effort to renew the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, appears particularly problematic.  In addition, there is the issue of the force’s makeup: Its members are soldiers from Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Denmark, Italy and Switzerland.  With the exception of Italy, all these countries have hit a low of one kind or another in their relations with Israel.  It is believed that Foreign Minister Lieberman and his deputy Ayalon view the non-extension of the force’s mandate as an opportunity to harm Sweden and Norway (a Norwegian army general heads the force), which are defined as the two European countries most extreme in their negative attitude towards Israel at the present time.  The Turkish issue is even more sensitive, and here too Lieberman has recently said that Turkey must not return to the position of mediator between Israel and Syria.

A classified Foreign Ministry document, which was recently prepared on the performance of the multi-national force, levels harsh criticism at its activity: “Due to the tendentious mandate of the force (protecting the Palestinians), it is clear that the reports (that it issues—BC) deal mainly with criticizing Israel… a certain tension is revealed at times between the Israeli government and the force’s activity, in light of our position that the force sometimes exceeds its mandate, among other things by demands to investigate incidents that took place and/or demands that Israel account for its actions to the donor states, in addition to extensive public relations activity—for example, by means of an impressive web site, which offers forms for Palestinian residents to file complaints against the Israeli authorities.”

The report states further: “The recent assessment reached by the Foreign Ministry following staff work done on the matter by professional echelons is that Israel has no interest as such in the continued activity of the force, but diplomatic circumstances do not enable the termination of its activity and/or non-renewal of its mandate.  However, it was agreed that the issue of the force’s continued activity should be examined, within the framework of possibilities that could be raised with the Palestinians in a future dialogue on Hebron.”

Note that Colonel Virob is also in hot water for testifying that the beating of Palestinian detainees in the West Bank constituted normative behavior in the IDF. A Haaretz report from February 2009 describes Brigadier Halevi as a “brilliant officer, who also excelled in combat [who] categorically refuses to open the Pandora’s box of moral debate [regarding the Gaza war.]“

Halevy and Weirob are among officers who didn’t go to England

Yossi Yehoshua and Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 6 2010 [page 9]

Itai Virob

Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that Brig. Gen. Herzi Halevi and Colonel Itai Virob were part of the military delegation that was supposed to leave for Britain last week.

Herzi Halevi

As reported yesterday, Israel canceled the planned visit by the military delegation to the UK after British authorities said they could not guarantee that the IDF officers would not be arrested. Brig. Gen. Halevi was the commander of the Paratroopers Brigade during Operation Cast Lead, and Colonel Virob, formerly the commander of the Kfir Brigade, also entered the Gaza Strip in the course of that operation with one of his battalions. Meanwhile, the British attorney general, who is visiting Israel at present, said yesterday that the UK would take urgent action to change the policy that allowed for arrest warrants to be issued against high-ranking Israeli officials [More on UK AG's statement in Maariv item below].

British Attorney General: We’ll change the system

Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, January 6 2010 [page 6]

Patricia Scotland

British Attorney General Patricia Scotland said last night in a lecture at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: The government understands the urgent need to change the system in order to prevent lawsuits against Israelis, and is determined to enable Israeli leaders to travel freely to Britain.

Among the people came to hear Scotland were Supreme Court President Judge Dorit Beinish, Supreme Court Judge Edna Arbel and British Ambassador to Israel Tom Phillips.

The British attorney general said that there should not be a safe haven for war criminals in any democratic country, but it should also be ensured that the law would not be used for the sake of one political campaign or another.  Scotland emphasized that until the law was amended, the policy according to which judges could issue arrest warrants against senior Israeli figures would not change.

Earlier in the day, Scotland met with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman.

1. Israel announces it will set up a limited internal investigation in order to stem the “political and economic tsunami” caused by the Goldstone report.
2. A European pro-Israel group attempts to use the Goldstone report to indict Hamas leaders in Belgium.
3. Jewish groups in the US support a suspected Somali human rights violator for fear of Israeli war crimes culpability (completely oblivious to the moral price they are exacting from all Jews.)

Officers’ trip to UK canceled due to concern of arrest

Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 5 2009

At the last minute, Israel canceled a work visit of Israeli officers to the UK due to concern that arrest warrants would be issued against them.

The Israeli delegation, comprised of officers ranking colonel, lieutenant colonel and major, was invited by the British army to examine military cooperation. Due to concern that warrants of arrest would be issued, Israeli officials contacted British government officials in advance and demanded that they guarantee that the officers would not be arrested. This is after two weeks ago, a warrant of arrest was issued against Opposition Chairwoman Tzippi Livni and earlier there were attempts to have a similar warrant issued against Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

To the great astonishment of the Israelis—the British announced last week that they could not guarantee that the officers would not be arrested. Consultations were held in Israel among the top echelons and it was decided: under the present circumstances, no risk should be taken, and the visit was canceled.

Danny Ayalon

Israel views this matter very seriously and officials say that it directly harms the security cooperation between the two countries. High-ranking officials also say that the situation that has been created in Britain is completely unacceptable and requires immediate legislative rectification.

The matter will come up today in talks that will take place in Israel between British Attorney General Baroness Patricia Janet Scotland with Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and the legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Ehud Kinan. Baroness Scotland arrived in Israel for a private pilgrimage with her family and she will take part in the “Israel and International Law” conference that is being held by the law faculty of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The Israeli officials intend to make it clear to Baroness Scotland that Israel expects a change in British legislation that would ensure that officers and Israeli personages cannot be arrested in Britain because of lawsuits against them for their part in IDF operations. “The risk to senior Israeli figures does concrete and immediate damage to bilateral relations,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. He said “organizations that are hostile to Israel try to exploit the legal channels and legal tools to threaten the Israeli and British decision-makers, including the authorities of the attorney general herself, and to thereby create political facts that should be determined around the diplomatic negotiating table.” Ayalon warned that the situation created in Britain also caused damage beyond its borders, since it increased similar initiatives in other places in the world.

In the meeting with the British attorney general, Israel will also protest the boycott phenomenon against it. “Israel and Britain have a tradition of long-standing of close ties that includes cooperation in many areas, including financial, science, academia, military, culture and more. Precisely for this reason we are very concerned by the growing and intensifying trends of hostility toward Israel among certain communities in Britain,” said Ayalon.

Despite the indignation, well-placed Israeli observers said Israel, like other countries, would have no choice but to take account of the growing internationalisation of criminal justice when they plan their campaigns and their travels. A report by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza war for the UN Human Rights Council, published in September, and now Ms Livni’s brush with Britain’s legal system, were examples of a trend that Israelis could not ignore.

Indeed, even European pro-Israeli groups have initiated Gaza war related litigation based on universal jurisdiction and the Goldstone report.

This morning’s (December 28 2009) Yediot reports (full text after the cut) that Israel will now initiate it own investigation, in order to stem the “political and economic tsunami” caused by the Goldstone report.

After the international criticism comes the Israeli response. Within two weeks, the government is expected to establish a committee led by a well-known jurist in order to investigate violations of the law during Operation Cast Lead.

The investigative committee’s powers, will however, be limited.

It looks as though the committee that will be established will not have the power to initiate proceedings against soldiers, commanders or politicians, but only to draw system-wide conclusions and make recommendations.

It remains to be seen whether this will be enough to dampen the drive for an international investigation.

An investigation to serve foreign policy

Tova Tzimuki and Itamar Eichner, Yediot, December 28 2009 [page 9]

After the international criticism comes the Israeli response. Within two weeks, the government is expected to establish a committee led by a well-known jurist in order to investigate violations of the law during Operation Cast Lead.

Over the past several days, discussions have been held among the upper echelons of the IDF, the Justice Ministry and the political echelon in order to notify the UN secretary general by the end of January of the Israeli answer to the Goldstone report. The report demanded the investigation of problematic incidents, as he described them, during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip a year ago.

Defense Minister Barak and Chief of Staff Ashkenazi applied a great deal of pressure, which won the support of Prime Minister Netanyahu against the establishment of an external investigative committee to probe the events of the operation in Gaza. Recently, it was learned that the defense minister had softened his position against establishing the committee. “Barak realizes that Israel’s problem isn’t with internal public opinion,” high-ranking political sources said. “The Goldstone report has created a political and economic tsunami, from problems with trips abroad by politicians and officers to boycotting Israeli goods in European supermarkets.” The withdrawal of Barak’s opposition to the establishment of a committee is now expected to allow the government’s decision to do so.

Until the beginning of the Goldstone commission’s work, Attorney General Meni Mazuz also believed that the IDF would be able to suffice with pinpoint checks of excessive and disproportionate use of force. At the end of the operation, when the complaints arrived about harm to civilians by the IDF, Mazuz ordered the army to hold immediately inquiries. However, since the Goldstone report demanded the establishment of an independent investigative committee, Mazuz transferred the emphasis to another plane of activity entirely.

A security-legal official said that Mazuz’s solution is to create a trustworthy legal agency directed by a well-known jurist that will serve as a counterweight to the Goldstone report. A political official said yesterday that Israel was in a trap. “While the establishment of the committee is intended to serve the needs of foreign policy,” the official said, “it is impossible to establish a committee with a good reputation if it is not given broad powers. A ‘cover-up committee’ will not solve a problem that refuses to go away.” All the jurists who attended the meetings until now claimed that the IDF’s investigations are yesterday’s methods, and that Judge Goldstone sees them as a biased investigation that has no credibility.

It looks as though the committee that will be established will not have the power to initiate proceedings against soldiers, commanders or politicians, but only to draw system-wide conclusions and make recommendations.

Mazuz’s position has won the support of Justice Minister Neeman and of Foreign Minister Lieberman. Both ministers, together with the attorney general, believe that Israel must conduct a sort of outside investigation in order to take the Goldstone report off the world’s agenda.

[…]

While it is true that the operation in Nablus does not violate any agreement between Israel and the PA, and the IDF is entitled to decide to send large numbers of troops into the city to go in pursuit of suspects, in these sensitive political times and against the backdrop of the persistent security and the ongoing and sincere efforts by the Palestinian Authority to deal with the terror organizations—perhaps an operation on this scale ought to have been approved first by the political echelon in Israel.

There are quite a few security officials who now lament the fact that Israel destroyed Fatah and all of its institutions during the second Intifada. The dosage, they say, was excessive. Fatah hasn’t been able to recover, and the Palestinian Authority, which relies on it, headed by Abu Mazen, has been trying for the past five years to gain momentum, without much success. On the way, it also lost one of its wings in Gaza.

The Palestinian Authority was not negligent in its investigation. Dozens of people were arrested, including people who fled the IDF’s manhunt in Nablus. The law and public order that has been maintained in Nablus is considered to be one of the most salient achievements of the Palestinian security forces and the Israeli security policy. Israel has an agreement with the PA: Israel will refrain from taking dramatic action in Nablus and other cities, except under irregular circumstances. The PA has asked to be given more and more security responsibilities in Area A. This weekend Israel gave them the figurative finger. The operation in Nablus overtly undermines the standing of the Palestinian Authority. Is that in Israel’s interest?

Note that Btselem has called for an investigation into charges that the IDF force had no intention of arresting the operatives and executed them unarmed.

Another settler, a 16 year old girl, was moderately injured by a firebomb in the southern West Bank this evening (December 27 2009.) Haaretz reports that Netanyahu has vowed that the IDF will continue to “aggressively” defend Israeli citizens, despite the “US rap” for Saturday’s killings.

Walking a fine line

Alex Fishman, Yediot, December 27 [page 6]

The people who decided on the way the operation was going to be carried out walked a very fine line. From the Israeli point of view of combating terrorism, the operation was fully justified. The operation dealt immediately, decisively and resoundingly with terrorists. But the killing of the three wanted men in Nablus might prove to be that final, last nail that knocks the horseshoe out, causes the horse and rider to fall, the battle to be lost and the city to be sacked.

The operational achievement is clear: within a very short amount of time after the murder of Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai, the murderers, or the people who were involved in the murder, were located and became the subjects of an operational plan that culminated in their deaths. This operation—regardless of whether it was planned as a “targeted killing operation” or not—ended on a powerful note that sent a clear message to a number of target audiences.

That message, first and foremost, was for the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria. There has been a sense of conflict between the government and the law enforcement agencies, on the one hand, and the general settler public, on the other, ever since the construction freeze was announced, and neither has this been restricted only to the extreme fringes. The defense minister and the top IDF brass have been cast as hostile people who have abandoned them to their fate. One had only to listen to the speeches at Rabbi Hai’s funeral to get a sense as to which way the wind was blowing. The people responsible for the murder, they said, were not the Palestinians, but the people who removed the roadblocks. Add to that the way in which instances of insubordination were dealt with as well as the Har Bracha Yeshiva—and you’ve got yourself a Jewish sector [in the West Bank] on the verge of explosion. The assassination operation in Nablus was geared to pour cold water on the people inflaming passions and to send a clear message: we are with you; we won’t forsake you; we’re here to defend you; terrorists will be dealt with swiftly and firmly. We aren’t on different sides.

The State of Israel cannot absolve itself of its security responsibility on the ground, and it needs to demonstrate that responsibility. Security officials did not regard the murder of Rabbi Hai as a strategic terror attack. Even if a Palestinian suicide bomber makes his way out of the West Bank tomorrow—and there are intelligence warnings about such a development—that would not indicate that there has been any drop in either the IDF and GSS’s security capacities or in the PA’s desire to deal with opposition forces. Yet Israel nevertheless opted to send the Palestinian Authority a thundering message as well: while it is true that you began a comprehensive investigation into the murder and made dozens of arrests, you weren’t efficient enough, decisive enough, and we aren’t going to wait for you. If you don’t tighten your supervision, we’re going to take matters into our own hands.

One of the terrorists had been granted amnesty within the framework of the “wanted men agreement,” an agreement the GSS is very proud of. That agreement allowed 400 wanted men from El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades to lay down their guns, to undertake not to revert to terrorist activity, and to come out of hiding under the Palestinian Authority’s supervision. That agreement was one of the principal factors contributing to the state of relative quiet that currently reigns in Judea and Samaria. Any terrorist who violates that agreement and reverts to engaging in terrorism is going to pay. And that is what happened. Last spring there was another such terrorist who violated the agreement, and paid with his life. The operation sent a clear message to the other formerly wanted men: we are serious.

Another one of the terrorists was released from an Israeli prison last January after having served a seven-year term. Against the backdrop of the fears about the consequences of the Shalit deal, the death of a recidivist terrorist who was released from prison sends a message to anyone who might be released in the framework of a deal: you’re being watched, no matter where you go.

There have been increasing numbers of people within Fatah who have called on the movement to take the militant route ever since the Fatah Central Conference that was held earlier this year. The operation yesterday also sends a clear message to those extremists who are trying to undermine Abu Mazen and who long for the days of the armed struggle.

But justice needs to be meted out intelligently and prudently. While it is true that the operation in Nablus does not violate any agreement between Israel and the PA, and the IDF is entitled to decide to send large numbers of troops into the city to go in pursuit of suspects, in these sensitive political times and against the backdrop of the persistent security and the ongoing and sincere efforts by the Palestinian Authority to deal with the terror organizations—perhaps an operation on this scale ought to have been approved first by the political echelon in Israel.

There are quite a few security officials who now lament the fact that Israel destroyed Fatah and all of its institutions during the second Intifada. The dosage, they say, was excessive. Fatah hasn’t been able to recover, and the Palestinian Authority, which relies on it, headed by Abu Mazen, has been trying for the past five years to gain momentum, without much success. On the way, it also lost one of its wings in Gaza.

The Palestinian Authority was not negligent in its investigation. Dozens of people were arrested, including people who fled the IDF’s manhunt in Nablus. The law and public order that has been maintained in Nablus is considered to be one of the most salient achievements of the Palestinian security forces and the Israeli security policy. Israel has an agreement with the PA: Israel will refrain from taking dramatic action in Nablus and other cities, except under irregular circumstances. The PA has asked to be given more and more security responsibilities in Area A. This weekend Israel gave them the figurative finger. The operation in Nablus overtly undermines the standing of the Palestinian Authority. Is that in Israel’s interest?

The US administration decided to spare no effort in helping Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad gain control over the turn of events on the ground. Just recently the administration approved increasing the allocations to the Palestinian Authority by USD 500 million (!), mainly for security purposes. The Egyptians, by means of Omar Suleiman who was here last week, have asked that the PA be given a list of things, including the release of hundreds of prisoners, in order to boost support for Abu Mazen.

Mass demonstrations were held yesterday in Nablus during the funerals. The demonstrations were directed less against Israel than they were against the Palestinian Authority. In the morning the Palestinian President’s Office issued a statement condemning Israel and accusing it of sabotaging peace efforts. By the evening, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad tried to cool people’s tempers, lest things get out of hand. The IDF stepped up security in northern Samaria for good reasons. The Palestinian Authority is on uneven footing. The operation this weekend might be the first domino to fall. Abu Mazen is flying on his last drops of fuel in any event.

Yesterday the pro-Israel lobby, the European Initiative, submitted in Belgium a lawsuit of a kind never filed before. The prospective defendants are the entire Hamas leadership; the plaintiffs are people with Belgian citizenship who live in the Gaza periphery communities and who have been targeted by dozens of rockets in the past number of years.

In the aftermath of the wave of lawsuits that were filed by pro-Palestinian organizations in the past number of years in Europe to have top Israeli officials arrested, yesterday a legal counter-assault was staged. Following six months of preparatory work, yesterday the pro-Israel lobby lodged an itemized legal complaint to the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office with the demand that the top Hamas leadership in Gaza and Damascus be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The suit, incidentally, is based on the Goldstone Report, as well as on reports by B’Tselem and Amnesty International.

Not only does the suit explicitly accept the principle of international jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is based on reporting by NGOs whose integrity is frequently attacked by the Government of Israel. The most surprising component of this development is, however, the endorsement of the validity of the Goldstone Report.

This blog will follow the case closely and publicly defend the group against any attacks from Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor because of its engagement in NGO “lawfare.”

The foreign passports legion

Yehuda Shohat, Yediot, December 24 2009

Thousands of Israelis have applied for citizenship in European Union member countries in the time that has passed since the EU was formed. Some people criticized them, saying that they had sought foreign citizenship in order to flee Israel, and accused them of wanting for patriotism. Now each and every one of those foreign passport holders has an opportunity to prove their detractors wrong, and to turn their passport into a diplomatic weapon. Yesterday the pro-Israel lobby, the European Initiative, submitted in Belgium a lawsuit of a kind never filed before. The prospective defendants are the entire Hamas leadership; the plaintiffs are people with Belgian citizenship who live in the Gaza periphery communities and who have been targeted by dozens of rockets in the past number of years.

In the aftermath of the wave of lawsuits that were filed by pro-Palestinian organizations in the past number of years in Europe to have top Israeli officials arrested, yesterday a legal counter-assault was staged. Following six months of preparatory work, yesterday the pro-Israel lobby lodged an itemized legal complaint to the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office with the demand that the top Hamas leadership in Gaza and Damascus be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The suit, incidentally, is based on the Goldstone Report, as well as on reports by B’Tselem and Amnesty International.

The list of men cited by the suit includes all of Hamas’s most prominent leaders: Khaled Mashal, Ismail Haniya, Mahmoud a-Zahar, Ahmed Jaabari, Mohammed Deif, Nizar Awadallah, Marwan Issa, Moussa Abu Marzuk, Mohammed Nasser and Ayman Taha. Initially, the members of the European Initiative had intended to have the suit extend to an additional 72 Hamas members, MPs from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but in the wake of a reexamination of the material a decision was made to abandon that objective lest the MPs be exempted due to their parliamentary immunity.

“It became evident in a comprehensive examination that we conducted that a Member of Parliament who does not play an active role in the leadership is likely to enjoy immunity in Belgium,” explained Attorney Roel Covaliers, who filed the suit along with his father, Hugo, and the Israeli lawyers, Mordechai and Nehama Tzibin. “Since the issue at hand is a legal action and not a political manifesto, we intend to be very specific and to remain true to the evidence and to the elements that we are going to be able to stand behind in court.”

[...]

As opposed to the United States, where the powerful AIPAC operates, there is no similar organization in Europe that is capable of lobbying for legislative steps and of doing public relations work on Israel’s behalf. While BICOM works very efficiently in the UK, there aren’t any pro-Israel groups or lobbies in the other European countries that have any public influence. The European Initiative was founded in order to meet that need. Among its sponsors are Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, the former chief of staff, Shlomo Ben-Ami, the former foreign minister, as well as European lawyers and academics. The new lobby intends to enter the vacuum and to become the central organization that operates on Israel’s behalf in Europe.

“The legal assault stems from need and from the sense that the tide is against top Israeli officials,” said Attorney Nehama Tzibin. “That is something that we want to even out by means of lawsuits, so that European public opinion realizes who the real terrorists are here. It is inconceivable that Israelis should be wanted for prosecution in Europe while no one does anything to deal with Hamas.”

Attorney Mordechai Tzibin, an international law expert, said that the European Initiative is run entirely on donations. The organization currently has lawyers working in five countries in addition to Belgium, and its goal is to raise funds that will allow it to maintain offices in most EU countries so as to facilitate the examination of possibly filing lawsuits against Hamas leaders. “In the past number of years the pro-Palestinian organizations have been waging a legal Intifada against senior Israeli officials in Europe. the time has arrived to balance that picture and to move the fighting into enemy territory. Hundreds of hours of work by the legal team in Antwerp and Tel Aviv were invested in this case,” said Tzibin.

Tzibin adds that a great deal of work was invested in finding and persuading Israelis with Belgian citizenship who live in southern Israel to sign on as plaintiffs. “All of the activists in Israel and overseas  went over the lists and located the complainants who could be defined as victims of terrorism, according to Belgian law. The complainants needn’t be victims of terrorism in every country, and the more people with European passports who register with us at the lobby offices, the greater the possibilities will be for prosecuting terrorists in additional countries.”