Judge: Israel Discriminated Against Withdrawal Opponents (Israeljustice.com)
For context over the last 20 months since the expulsion, click here.
“In 2005, the government issued guidelines in dealing with withdrawal opponents. The guidelines ordered prosecutors to ignore evidence that disputes allegations of threats against civil servants.”
“‘These cases cannot be closed by the investigative unit because of lack of evidence or lack of public interest, but only with permission from the state prosecutor.'”
Full Text;
BEERSHEBA — A senior judge has acknowledged that Israel’s judiciary discriminated against opponents of the government’s expulsion of 16,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank.
The judge said courts and prosecutors applied a different set of standards to the thousands of demonstrators who protested the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank in August 2005. The judge said authorities focused on the prosecution of minors.
“We dealt differently with the cases from the Disengagement.” Judge Drora Beit-Or, deputy president of the Beersheba Magistrates Court, said.
From January to September 2005, 4,000 anti-government demonstrators were arrested. More than 700 indictments were issued, and two years later many of the cases continue to be processed.
In 2005, the government issued guidelines in dealing with withdrawal opponents. The guidelines ordered prosecutors to ignore evidence that disputes allegations of threats against civil servants. According to the guidelines, only the chief prosecutor could close an investigation for lack of evidence.
“Any complaint or information regarding a threat to the person or property of a public official, civil servant or member of the security forces in the wake of the disengagement plan…will be immediately brought before the investigating officer in the appropriate department,” the guidelines said. “It should be emphasized that these cases cannot be closed by the investigative unit because of lack of evidence or lack of public interest, but only with permission from the state prosecutor.”
The judge’s admission came during an April 15 hearing of a senior reserve officer who sought to resist his expulsion from his Kfar Yam home in the Gush Katif bloc of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. Aryeh Yitzhaki, who served as a military historian, has been charged with threatening security forces in a brief face-off with police and soldiers in which nobody was hurt and no shots were fired.
“Many indictments were handed down,” Ms. Beit-Or recalled. “We [in Beersheba] dealt with many cases including minors and threats. Most of the defendants were first time offenders and all [cases] received special treatment.”
Yitzhaki’s attorney, Yoram Sheftel, said the Israeli judicial system supported the government’s expulsion policy. Sheftel disputed the judge’s use of the word “disengagement,” the government term for the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.
“When you say disengagement, this is a mistake,” Sheftel said.
“Disengagement is not a neutral term. The courts collaborated with the politicians in the expulsion of 8,000 people.”
“The court won’t go into this,” Ms. Beit-Or responded. “We will not discuss politics.”
After his expulsion from the Gaza Strip, Yitzhaki was dismissed from his post as a college lecturer. He said he was the only Jewish resident of the Gaza Strip who did not receive compensation from the government.
“We are the only ones among all the thousands who never received one cent of compensation in order to show people that this is what happens when you act like us,” Yitzhaki said. “This is like Russia where you are expelled from your home and fired from your job.”
Sheftel disputed many of the allegations presented by the prosecution. He said Yitzhaki stood on his roof with 25 supporters and refused to leave the building.
But the defense attorney said Yitzhaki’s Israel Army-issued M-16 was not loaded and his client surrendered his weapon after an army commander agreed against police participation in the evacuation. During the withdrawal, black-clad police stormed homes and clubbed those who refused to leave.
“I will argue that if the indictment shows that there were immediate negotiations that ended with the weapons being relinquished, then this shows lack of intent [to murder], and then the facts in the indictment do not constitute a crime,” Sheftel said.
The prosecution agreed to drop the charge that Yitzhaki pointed a loaded M-16 toward troops that had surrounded his home. But prosecutor Sarit Shemesh refused to revise the indictment that Yitzhaki, after initial threats, surrendered his weapons to the army. Ms. Shemesh said she was not sufficiently familiar with the Yitzhaki case.
“I don’t know the facts in this case,” Ms. Shemesh said. “Therefore, I need to check if we will be satisfied with this confession.”
“What is this?” Yitzhaki responded. “You don’t know the case?”