person:neal hendel

Israel’s Supreme Court grants Lara Alqasem’s appeal; she will be allowed to enter the country
Haaretz.com | Noa Landau and Jonathan Lis Oct 19, 2018 5:18 AM
▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-s-supreme-court-accepts-lara-alqasem-s-appeal-she-will-be-a

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.6573218.1539886990!/image/3123733965.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/3123733965.jpg

U.S. student Lara Alqasem will be allowed to enter Israel after the Supreme Court accepted on Thursday her appeal against the decision to prevent her entry. Alqasem, whom the state claimed was a BDS activist, was held over two weeks in a detainment center at Ben-Gurion International Airport despite receiving a student visa from an Israeli consulate prior to her arrival.

Alqasem, 22, was detained at Ben-Gurion Airport upon her arrival on October 2 after she was flagged as a BDS activist. Alqasem, who has a student visa and is enrolled in a master’s program in human rights at the Hebrew University, has been detained ever since.

“I’m relieved at the court’s decision and incredibly grateful for the work of my amazing and tireless lawyers Yotam Ben Hillel and Leora Bechor as well as the support of my family and friends. I will be happy to say more when I’ve had a chance to rest and process,” Alqasem told Haaretz following her release.

“Since the appellant’s actions do not raise satisfactory cause to bar her to entry to Israel, the inevitable impression is that invalidating the visa given to her was due to the political opinions she holds,” read the verdict. “If this is truly the case, then we are talking about an extreme and dangerous step, which could lead to the crumbling of the pillars upon which democracy in Israel stands,” the verdict continued.

“The Law of Entry to Israel is intended to protect the state’s sovereignty, and the public’s safety and security. It does not have a component of penalty, or revenge for previous bad behavior,” Justice Neal Hendel said.

“Despite the obstacles in her way the appellant insists on her right to study at the Hebrew University. This conduct is not in keeping, in an understatement, with the thesis that the she’s an undercover boycott activist,” he continued.

“The Interior Ministry has openly admitted that it does not have any evidence of the appellant’s engaging in boycott activity since April 2017, except for mysterious ’indications’ whose essence hasn’t been clarified and regarding which no evidence has been submitted,” Neal noted.

“The material submitted regarding the appellant’s activity in the SJP organization shows that even at that stage the boycott activity was minor and limited in character,” Neal added. “There’s no doubt the SJP cell indeed supported boycotting Israel – and this position must be roundly condemned. It is also presumable that the appellant, who played a role in the cell and for three years was one of its few members, was partner to this unworthy activity. However, it is impossible to ignore the cell’s sporadic and relatively minor character. In itself, it certainly was not one of the prominent boycott organizations and it is doubtful whether the appellant could be seen as filling the criteria [required in the law?] even when she had a position in it.”

Neal continued, saying that “alongside the random indications of the appellant’s involvement in BDS activity during her studies, it is impossible to ignore the testimonies of her lecturers about her complex approach, the curiosity she displayed toward Israel and Judaism and her readiness to conduct an open, respectful dialogue – which is in stark contrast to the boycott idea.”

“The struggle against the BDS movement and others like it is a worthy cause. The state is permitted, not to say obliged, to protect itself from discrimination and the violent silencing of the political discourse. It may take steps against the boycott organizations and their activists. In this case, preventing the appellant’s entry does not advance the law’s purpose and clearly deviates from the bounds of reasonability,” Neal concluded.

Justice Anat Baron said that “there was no place to deny the appellant the entry visa she had been granted, because clearly she doesn’t now and hasn’t for a long time engaged in boycotting Israel, not to mention engaging in ’active, continuing and substantial’ work in this matter. The decision to deny the appellant’s entry visa is unreasonable to the extent that it requires intervention.”

#Lara_Alqasem #BDS #Douane #Frontière #Aéroport #expulsions_frontières (d’israel)

Anonymous snipers and a lethal verdict

We may never know the name of the soldier who killed Razan al-Najjar. But we do know the names of those who gave the order enabling him to kill her

Amira Hass Jun 05, 2018

Haaretz.com
▻https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-anonymous-snipers-and-a-lethal-verdict-1.6151967

We know her name: Razan al-Najjar. But what’s his? What’s the name of the soldier who killed her, with direct fire to the chest last Friday? We don’t know, and we probably won’t ever know.
In contrast to the Palestinians suspected of killing Israelis, the Israeli who killed Najjar is protected from exposure to the cameras and an in-depth breakdown of his family history, including his relatives’ participation in routine attacks on Palestinians as part of their military service or their political affiliation.
Demanding Israeli microphones will not be pushed into his face with probing questions: Didn’t you see she was wearing a paramedic’s white robe when you aimed at her chest?
Didn’t you see her hair covered with a head scarf? Do your rules of engagement require you to shoot at paramedics, men and women as well, and at a distance of about 100 meters (some 330 feet) from the border fence? Did you shoot at her legs (why?) and miss because you’re useless? Are you sorry? Do you sleep well at night? Did you tell your girlfriend it was you who killed a young woman the same age as her? Was Najjar your first?
Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
Email* Sign up

The anonymity of our soldiers picking off and killing Palestinians is an inseparable part of the culture of Israeli impunity. We are above it all. Immune from everything. Allowing an anonymous soldier to kill a young paramedic with a bullet that hit her in the chest, exiting from her back, and continuing on with our lives.
>> ’We die anyway, so let it be in front of the cameras’: Conversations with Gazans
There are lots of pictures of Najjar on the internet: She stood out as one of the few women among the first aid teams operating at the “March of Return” protest sites since March 30.
After two years’ training, she volunteered for the Palestinian Medical Relief Society. She happily gave interviews, including to The New York Times’ correspondent in Gaza, speaking about the ability of women to act under difficult conditions no less so than men – and even better than them. She knew how dangerous her job was. A paramedic was killed by Israel Defense Forces fire on May 14, dozens of others were injured and suffocated as they ran to rescue the wounded.
Najjar, 21 at the time of her death, was from the village of Khuza’a, east of Khan Yunis. In interviews, she was not asked about the wars and Israeli military attacks during her childhood and later. It is hard to find their scars in her pleasant face seen on screen. In every interview, she is seen wrapped in a head scarf of a different color – and each time it is wrapped around her head stylishly, meticulously, showing an investment of time and thought. The color reveals a love for life, despite all she had gone through.
We do not know the name of the soldier, but we do know who is in the chain of command that ordered and enabled him to kill a 21-year-old paramedic: Southern Command chief Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot. Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Sharon Afek and Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, both of whom approved the wording of the rules of engagement, as the High Court justices were told before they denied petitions against the shooting at protesters along the border fence.
Despite all the testimony about civilian fatalities and horrifying injuries, the justices chose to believe what they were told in the name of the military by Avi Milikovsky, a lawyer from the State Prosecutor’s Office: The use of potentially lethal force is taken only as a last resort, in a proportionate manner and to the minimal extent required.
Please explain how this tallies with the death of Najjar, who was treating a man injured directly by a tear-gas canister. An eyewitness told The New York Times that while the injured man was being taken to an ambulance, her colleagues were treating her because she was suffering the effects of the tear gas. Then shots were heard and Najjar fell.
High Court Justices Esther Hayut, Hanan Melcer and Neal Hendel presented the army with an exemption from investigation and an exemption from criticism on a silver platter. In doing so, they joined the chain of command that ordered our anonymous soldier to fire at the chest of the paramedic and kill her.

Anonymous #Snipers and a Lethal Verdict
▻https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-anonymous-snipers-and-a-lethal-verdict-1.6151967

We do not know the name of the soldier, but we do know who is in the chain of command that ordered and enabled him to kill a 21-year-old paramedic: Southern Command chief Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot. Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Sharon Afek and Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, both of whom approved the wording of the rules of engagement, as the High Court justices were told before they denied petitions against the shooting at protesters along the border fence.

Despite all the testimony about civilian fatalities and horrifying injuries, the justices chose to believe what they were told in the name of the military by Avi Milikovsky, a lawyer from the State Prosecutor’s Office: The use of potentially lethal force is taken only as a last resort, in a proportionate manner and to the minimal extent required.

Please explain how this tallies with the death of Najjar, who was treating a man injured directly by a tear-gas canister. An eyewitness told The New York Times that while the injured man was being taken to an ambulance, her colleagues were treating her because she was suffering the effects of the tear gas. Then shots were heard and Najjar fell.

High Court Justices Esther Hayut, Hanan Melcer and Neal Hendel presented the army with an exemption from investigation and an exemption from criticism on a silver platter. In doing so, they joined the chain of command that ordered our anonymous soldier to fire at the chest of the paramedic and kill her.

#Israel #crimes “#villa_dans_la_jungle” #assassins #meurtres #impunité “#nos_valeurs”

Zionism at its best
▻http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.756077
The land that Israel has designated for the joyous settlers is called Atir/Umm al-Hiran, and for 60 years it has been home to members of the Bedouin Al-Qi’an tribe.
By Amira Hass | Nov. 30, 2016 | 4:48 AM | 1

The videos produced by the Hiran settlers’ group show a lot of joyful Jews who like to sing and play music, tell jokes and have fun. They will be even happier very soon, when they move to the site of their permanent community in the northeastern Negev.

The land the state has designated for them is called Atir/Umm al-Hiran, and for 60 years it has been home to members of the Bedouin Al-Qi’an tribe. In other words, the homes and playgrounds for Jewish children that will be built there, and the gardens to be planted, will all be established on the ruins of the homes and lives of some 1,000 other people, who are also Israeli citizens (some of whom served in the army, for those who care).

Any day now, the bulldozers of the Israel Land Administration and/or its subcontractors are going to demolish the homes of these Bedouin citizens to make way for a flourishing community of joyful Jewish citizens. Zionism in a nutshell.

This is not an act of war or even an act of vindictive passion; everything has been calmly and carefully planned. The government of Ariel Sharon decided, the National Planning and Building Council approved, and the appeals committees rejected all the objections filed.

The plan to destroy the lives of Bedouin for whom the Negev has been home for hundreds of years to advance and elevate a group of Jews who have gathered from all over the country – this also has the approval and sanction of six judges from three different courts: Israel Pablo Akselrad of the Kiryat Gat Magistrate’s Court; Judges Sarah Dovrat, Rachel Barkai and Ariel Vago of the Be’er Sheva District Court and Justices Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel of the Supreme Court. (Justice Daphne Barak-Erez objected to the demolition.)

These judges knew that the Al-Qi’an tribe has lived in Umm al-Hiran since 1956, after being sent there at the order of the military governor. After 1948, those few Bedouin whom Israel did not expel to Gaza or the West Bank and Jordan were ordered to stay in a designated area of the Negev, which has gradually been reduced. The Al-Qi’an tribe was forced to leave the lands it had lived on for several generations, and on which Kibbutz Shoval was built. After years of wandering and evacuations, they were allowed to settle in the area of Wadi Yatir. Nevertheless, the state never officially recognized their village. That’s 60 years without electricity, water service or government expenditure on education, welfare or health. Moreover, all its structures are defined as “illegal.”

The Startup Nation wants them to move to the Bedouin township of Hura. So here’s another mini-lesson in Zionism: Jewish Israelis are allowed to decide for themselves where and how to live. Arabs? They should be thankful we aren’t expelling them; they’ll live where and how we decide.

Wrote Judge Akselrad: “We can say that the personal interest of the plaintiffs that the roofs over their heads not be demolished are not weighty under these circumstances, and in any case do not prevail over the public interest of preventing construction on state lands.”

And the judges in Be’er Sheva put it, “Once it was determined that the permission given the appellants to use the land was revocable, the respondent has the right to demand their eviction from the land. … The claim that the respondent has some covert or even overt motive for evacuating them from the land in favor of establishing a Jewish community at the site … [must be discussed] by a different tribunal.”

And what did the two justices from the different tribunal, the Supreme Court, say? They hid behind the procedural explanation that the residents had been late in filing their complaints against the destruction of their homes and lives.

The majority decision by Rubinstein and Hendel permitting the village’s demolition was handed down in May 2015. Now the children and adults in Umm al-Hiran know that any minute the bulldozers and Jewish officials bearing official orders will be coming to kick them out.