 |
Advertisement |
|
However, the Justice
Ministry's legal opinion notes that the road map's section on
building Palestinian institutions does not confine itself to
proper elections and obligates the PA to carry out a
comprehensive democratic reform. This includes establishing
the rule of law and the principle of freedom, which in the
eyes of Hamas are like eating pork during Ramadan.
The
opinion of international law experts at the Justice Ministry
enumerates the acts of terror and written incitement by Hamas,
which calls for the destruction of Israel and the cancellation
of all diplomatic agreements with it. The document points to
contradictions between Hamas' deeds and platform, and European
law, U.S. President George W. Bush's speeches and the
declarations of the PA itself. It notes that the European
Union's court has disqualified way more moderate political
parties from membership in European Parliament. In recent
years Spain and Turkey have disqualified parties tainted by
verbal terror, and the European Court of Justice rejected the
claims of these parties that their disqualification was
contrary to the Treaty on European Union.
Livni expects
that the European countries will exercise rules identical to
those it exercises with regard to political parties in Europe:
"Either weapons or elections." Livni says the postponement of
the elections in the territories makes it possible to stop
Hamas now from getting to the ballot box. She fears that after
the disengagement, it will be harder to enlist international
support for this. She has brought up the subject with senior
European and United Nations representatives who have visited
Israel and with heads of the U.S. Jewish organizations. The
Zionist Organization of America has enlisted two members of
Congress, who wrote to President Bush to pressure Abu Mazen
until he orders Hamas to choose either elections and
democracy, or terror and incitement. However, in these days of
the disengagement, an organization that invites MK Aryeh Eldad
of the National Union to speak at its annual convention is
cause for suspicion in and of itself.
Ya'alon's
version and the truth
After Sergeant Taysir al-Heib
was convicted of killing British peace activist Tom Hurndall,
his father, who came from Britain to see the verdict
delivered, said he was worried about the "culture" in which
the incident occurred. Anthony Hurndall spoke about an
atmosphere "in which Israeli soldiers feel comfortable
shooting for no justified reason." He took comfort in the fact
that the soldier who was convicted of killing his son would
have plenty of time to contemplate his crime behind iron
bars.
The Abu Hijla family from Nablus was not granted
even this small consolation. No one has paid for the death of
the mother of the family. The military police's file on the
investigation, which came into the hands of the family's
attorney, casts a heavy shadow on the military justice
system.
Here is a summary of the events:
October
2002: Shadin Abu Hijla, a 60-year-old peace activist, is shot
and killed on October 11, in the courtyard of her home in the
Rafadiyeh neighborhood, as she is embroidering. Her doctor
husband and her son, a university lecturer, are lightly
wounded. According to eyewitnesses, the Abu Hijlas were shot
by an Israel Defense Forces soldier who got out of a military
Jeep, knelt and fired toward the house.
December 2002:
After an investigation at the scene, the commanders report
that Abu Hijla had the bad luck of being in the trajectory of
a stray bullet. The information that the family and an
European Union representative, Alistair Crooke, possessed 14
cartridges collected from the street, comes to the chief of
staff's attention. Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon orders the
judge advocate general to hand the case to the military police
for investigation.
June 2003: The IDF Spokesman's
Office informs Haaretz that the military police investigation
found that Abu Hijla was shot by an IDF unit patrolling Nablus
to enforce the curfew; the unit noticed a man leaving a house
in the city and shot toward the house's surrounding wall as a
deterrent. The statement says that the chief of staff
determined the unit had acted in accordance with the
instructions in force at the time and therefore, "it is our
obligation, as commanders, to give full backing." However, "as
a conclusion drawn from the investigation findings, the chief
of staff has ordered that surrounding walls outside houses no
longer be considered a `natural harm shield'" (a barrier that
ostensibly ensures the safety of passersby who have found
themselves in the line of fire, behind the
suspect).
That is to say, the soldier who aimed his
weapon at Abu Hijla's house was acting in accordance with the
instructions in force at the time. Abu Hijla died because of a
faulty procedure.
February 2005: The judge advocate
general orders a disciplinary (not criminal) trial for the
regional brigade commander, who has in the meantime resigned
from the IDF, and the company commander. The charge: deviating
from the rules of engagement in force in that
area.
July 2005: Attorney Hussein Abu Hussein of Umm
al-Fahm, the Abu Hijla family's lawyer, obtains the
investigation material, including statements from 10 of the
soldiers in the unit that was in the area. All of the
statements, which Haaretz has obtained, were taken on the
morning of January 19, 2003. All of the soldiers denied that
they had fired in the direction of the house. All of them do
not remember who fired. Almost all of them stuck, word for
word, to the following testimony: "In the briefing we received
before we went out into the field, as well as in the past, the
commanders stressed that a natural harm shield includes open
territory and natural earth piles, not houses, not the
surrounding walls of houses and not anything that could cause
harm to houses." This is, in other words, the exact opposite
of the chief of staff's version (the IDF Spokesman's Office:
"The difference apparently stems from the fact that the chief
of staff was referring to the initial clarifications that took
place right after the incident and not to the findings of the
investigative military police").
Furthermore, in none
of the testimonies was it stated that the force was in any
danger that compelled it to deviate from the instructions, or
that the shooting was intended to stop a "wanted man" trying
to escape. According to the platoon commander's testimony,
when the patrol was in the area of the Abu Hijla home, "there
were no violent disturbances or shooting from the direction of
the home of the woman who was killed."
Question: If the
soldiers spoke the truth to the investigators about the
instructions concerning a "natural harm shield," why did the
previous chief of staff decide that Abu Hijla had died of a
faulty procedure, and why did he see fit to change it? Answer:
Shadin Abu Hijla died because a Palestinian woman's life is
cheap and no one pays for her death.
Determined not
to investigate
No one has paid for the death of
11-year-old Maram al-Nahla of Nablus either. Ten months ago
she was shot and killed. Eyewitnesses said that on September
15 last year, at about 5 A.M., a large military force burst
into a number of houses on Al-Razi Street and imprisoned the
inhabitants in their homes. The force surrounded the home of
the Al-Kilani family, where six wanted men were hiding, and
exchanges of fire ensued, lasting about an hour. At 10 A.M.,
when the shooting stopped, Maram came out into the street with
her parents. In the film recording the removal of the bodies,
the sound of a single shot is heard, apparently from the
direction of the adjacent house, which was serving as an
observation post for IDF soldiers. Immediately after, a woman
is heard screaming. A news photographer at the scene focused
his camera on her. In the photograph, the girl is seen being
carried in the arms of her father and mother. She arrived at
the hospital dead.
In November, B'Tselem, The Israeli
Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, requested
that the judge advocate general order the military police to
open an investigation. The negative reply ("There is no direct
evidence that the child was hit by gunfire from IDF soldiers -
this is a true fighting incident") came seven months later, in
June 2005. Two years ago, following the procrastination in the
investigation into the killing of Abu Hijla, Moshe Ya'alon
announced, "It is necessary to avoid similar incidents in the
future and to ensure that thorough and deep investigations are
carried out, through which the IDF's aspiration and ability to
arrive at the investigation of the truth will be
proven." |
.gif){kind=small}
