Israeli military court sends captured Hamas leaders for trial (Guardian)

[Eugene]

Israeli military court sends captured Hamas leaders for trial

· 15 West Bank politicians face up to 10 years in jail
· Speaker of Palestinian parliament is shackled

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Friday September 1, 2006
The Guardian

An Israeli military court yesterday ordered 15 Hamas leaders, including two
cabinet ministers and the speaker of Palestine's parliament, to go on trial
charged with membership of an outlawed organisation. The group, 12 of them
elected members of the parliament, appeared in court at Ofer Camp on the
occupied West Bank. At trial on December 12 they face a maximum jail
sentence of 10 years if convicted.

They are among more than 30 Hamas political leaders detained in recent weeks
after the capture by militants near Gaza of an Israeli soldier, Corporal
Gilad Shalit, who is still being held. The men, in brown prison shirts and
trousers, each held a finger aloft as an act of defiance as they sat together
in the dock, surrounded by armed troops. Abdul Aziz Duaik, speaker of
parliament, one of the most recent detained, was in pyjamas and chains.

Jawad Boulous, a lawyer representing Mr Duaik and some others, challenged
the Israeli court's jurisdiction. "The defence does not recognise the legality
of this court because it is a political trial," he said outside the hearing.
"We're talking about leaders abducted by Israel. We demand the release of all
of them."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1862541,00.html

[atreides1]

1. Now

Put the word Republican Party in the place of Israeli, and substitute Democratic Party for Hamas, and you get to see the neo-cons greatest wet dream.

[breakaleg]

2. So their crime is being "a member or an outlawed organization"?

The Palestinians can't win. Either Israel is occupying their land and setting the policy or they aren't.

They apparently have this law they created which stipulates what cannot exist on Palestinian land - kind of like the US arresting a Canadian for being a member of a Canadian organization the US disapproves of.

And yet they criticize Palestinians for not making a success out of Gaza when they pulled out, even though Israel is still setting out policy in Gaza.

Which is it? Does Israel control Gaza or doesn't it? It can't have it both ways.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Legailities Of the Situation, Sir, Are Rather Intricate

If recollection serves, these men were arrested in the Jordan valley, not in Gaza. Israel exercises military occupation of that area. It is commonly pressed that this is illegal, but the actual situation is murkier than that. When the area was seized from Jordan in '67, there was nothing illegal about the action. Claims of illegality arise from the contention Israel has not complied with a U.N. resolution directing withdrawl, and with some elements of the conduct of the Israeli administration of the area. The U.N. resolution directed several things be done by many parties, that have also not come about, and it is quite possible to make a good case that it was a package deal, in which all the items directed were to occur at about the same time. An excellent case can also be made that Israeli administration of that area has violated the relevant law, particularly in the sphere of land ownership.

A power exercising military occupation has certain duties and rights. Among these are responsibility for maintaining civil order, and taking necessary actions for the protection of its forces in the area, as well as preventing hostile actions against its citizenry originating in the occuppied area. Thus it is quite possible for actions to be taken legally against an organization that agitates for violence against the occupying authority and the country whose military exercises the occupation, and for actions to be taken legally against individual adherents of that organization who promote and levy violence against its soldiers and citizens. The standing of such persons among the occupied populace is irrelevant: they could be saints and leaders wildly popular among them, or demonic criminals against whom every man's hand is raised. It is certainly possible to raise questions about the legality of conditions of detention, and of whether individuals arrested are in fact guilty of the things they are charged with. But there is really not much question about whether an occupying authority has the right to take actions to suppress violent resistance to its presence, or attacks originating in the area under occupation against its citizens.

[breakaleg]

4. Aren't the occupied people also allowed to launch a resistance

to that occupation?

The picture you paint, as it stands today, is that Israel occupies the land. They arrest, detain, kill and otherwise rule the territory as they see fit. But when the other side resists, they are arrested and charged with crimes Israel deems they committed. But what recourse do Palestinians have when Israel commits crimes on its land? None. Because Israel calls all the shots. And I'd say there are more than enough cases of misconduct on Israel's side to warrant having their power to be taken away. Except the Palestinians aren't in the position to do it, and the world doesn't really care enough to step in.

As I said, there is no winning for the Palestinians. They must do exactly what Israel stipulates, or else.

[The Magistrate]

5. Certainly They Are Allowed To Do That, Sir

But the enemy they assail is allowed to fight as well. The right to attempt something does not entail any right to succeed in what is attempted. Where there are great disparities of force, it is often distinctly unwise for the side on the short end of that balance to seek redress by violence of whatever grievances it might have in the circumstances. In this instance, both sides prop up the other in the worst of their behavior: without the violence of Arab Palestinian militants, Israeli violence would be clearly wrong to all; without the violence of Israel, militant Arab Palestinian violence would be clearly wrong to all. The only real difference is that what the Arab Palestinian militants do cannot have much real effect on Israel, while what Israel does has a great effect on Arab Palestinian life as a whole. Throughout the history of this conflict, each spasm of violence by Arab Palestinian militants has brought a countervailing Israeli action that has left the people of Arab Palestine in more constricted straits, and with lessened prospects for the future. This would, it seems to me, argue powerfully for altering the course of conduct.

[breakaleg]

6. I don't disagree with you about the actions and reaction on both sides

not the lack of wisdom on the Palestinian side, knowing the consequences will be more than they can handle. I'm simply pointing out that one side has a recourse the other doesn't, and their motives are questionable at best.

As it stands there is very little incentive for Israel to come to the negotiating table - they haven't finished building all of their settlements and barriers yet. In the meantime, you are saying it's unwise for Palestinians to resist militarily. But they have very little other recourse, at that level of society. They are likely as disillusioned with their government as we are with ours and have run out of options.

[The Magistrate]

7. Unfortunately, Sir

Sometimes a people, like an individual, simply loses, and there really is no help for it. It may well be that the people of Arab Palestine have, by now, no good options, and no real prospect for success in satisfying their legitimate aspirations, after so many years of feckless and bloody-minded leadership guiding them into blind alleys. Whether or not the Israelis have clean hands or no does not effect what the actual situation is. Nor does it make a course that has only led to disaster a good one to continue on.