Excerpted From; Sodom in the Outposts, Elyakim Haetzni (October 13, 2006 No URL)
(Translated from the Hebrew as a public service by Women in Green)
For context, click on New Persecutions in Yehuda and the Shomron…
Excerpts;
A barometer for measuring the full dimensions of the human and legal scandal inherent in the system of persecution of the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria is provided by the decision by Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, in HCJ Ajuri (7015/02).
The Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria issued an “order assigning place of residence” against the Arab appellants, residents of the area, in which they were ordered to move to the Gaza Strip for a period of two years. In his decision the justice portrayed the harsh security circumstances: the terrorists “are supported by part of the civilian population, and by their families and relatives.” The State of Israel was faced with “a new and difficult reality,” and, on this background, the decision spoke of the transfer of the family members of suiciders or those conducting severe terror attacks, and their dispatch to Gaza.
As regards Abed Alnasser Mustafa Ahmed Asida, Justice Barak established the following facts:
His brother was wanted for the murder of two people from Yitzhar and nineteen souls in two attacks at Emmanuel. Alnasser Asida admitted that he knew his brother was wanted for the murder in Yitzhar, and also saw him carrying an assault rifle. He admitted to giving him food and clothing, he gave him his private car, and also drove him to Shechem. (He argued, however, that he did not know for what end.) Additionally, he drove his terrorist brother to the hospital when the latter was injured in the course of preparing an explosive charge. He also drove to the hospital another person who was injured in a similar “accident.” He likewise aided another fugitive, his brother-in-law, with clothing and food, and lent him his car.
Based on these facts, Justice Barak decided to cancel the restraining order, giving the reason that it was not sufficient that the person receiving the restraining order “was aware of the grave terrorist activity of his brother,” and that the active deeds that he carried out fall below the level of danger required under the provisions of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: a real danger to the security of the area.
The justice added that the goal of deterring others is an insufficient cause for the issuance of restraining orders. The goal must be “in special cases in which real danger to security of the area is foreseen if this measure is not adopted.”
These are the principles that are a guiding light to the High Court of Justice in its defense of the rights of the Arab accomplice to murderers, as articulated by Justice Barak:
“The fundamental premise is that the displacement of a person from his place of residence and his forcible assignment to another place seriously harms his dignity, his liberty and his property. A person’s home is not merely a roof over his head, but it is also a means for
the physical and social location of a person, his private life and
his social relationships.Several basic human rights are harmed as a result of an involuntary displacement of a person from his home and his residence being assigned to another place, even if this assigned residence does not involve him crossing an international border.”
It is a mark of disgrace for the State of Israel that these sublime principles are applied only to Arabs, while they are brutally crushed underfoot in regard to Jews.
Commentary;
This author received these comments in an email tonight which drew attention to the Haetzni article and the above excerpts from it;
I keep rereading the words of Aharon Barak, quoted in the piece by Elyakim HaEtzni, and get more and more disturbed. With regard to the possibility that an Arab, who assisted his terrorist brother and brother-in-law in their nefarious deeds, might be expelled from his home in Yosh and made to live with his fellow terrorists in Aza, the former Chief Justice had this to say:
“The fundamental premise is that the displacement of a person from his place of residence and his forcible assignment to another place seriously harms his dignity, his liberty and his property. A person’s home is not merely a roof over his head, but it is also a means for the physical and social location of a person, his private life and his social relationships. Several basic human rights are harmed as a result of an involuntary displacement of a person from his home and his residence being assigned to another place, even if this assigned residence does not involve him crossing an international border.”
It is abhorrent how these values were completely ignored in the case of Gush Katif’s Jewish residents!!
A pure example of Israel’s dual, discriminatory “justice system.” MB