The military Captain1 declared loudly that the demonstration was “Illegal”, and asked the protesters to leave the scene. The protesters didn’t move. They have been demonstrating every weekend for years now, at the same place. There’s always an officer yelling that this is an illegal demonstration, and if they happen to get too close to the fence, or if some of the protesters – usually the younger ones – start throwing stones at the soldiers, there’s some tear gas. They were used to it. They also knew that this situation had the potential to quickly escalate to real danger. Protesters had already paid with their lives for protesting. After all, the officer in charge is absolutely right, the demonstration was illegal. Just another weekend near the Palestinian village of Bil’in. Just another illegal demonstration. The citizens of Israel can go to sleep in peace: tear gas grenades are flying because the law must be enforced. Right?
Bil’in is a Palestinian village west of Ramallah, and is the home of roughly 1,800 people2. No one would have heard about it had it not been for the Israeli West Bank barrier, more commonly known as the separation wall. The wall’s planned path goes through the lands of Bil’in, leaving about 400 acres of the village’s land on the Israeli side of the wall, more than a third of which is private Palestinian land. The residents protested, and turned to the Israeli Supreme Court. On September 4th, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the path of the wall should be altered, and that the current path is illegal according to Israeli law. Nothing has been done by the Israeli governments since.
When the protesters – local Palestinians, Israeli left-wingers and activists from all over the world – go out to protest against Israel’s blunt disregard for its own laws, the IDF declares the entire area, located in the middle of the occupied territories, as a closed military zone, thus making the demonstration illegal. Then, the tear gas and weapons are being put to use. After all, the law must be enforced. Right?
It’s just that the law works differently for Jews and for Palestinians in Israel. The protests in Bil’in and Ni’ilin – another, bigger village – already took their toll, in blood. Just this past year 6 protesters were killed at these demonstrations. The youngest was Ahmed Mousa, a 10 year old from Ni’ilin who was shot in the head with live ammunition. The last victim was Aqel Srur, shot by a sniper in Ni’ilin. Among those victims is also Basem Ibrahim Abu-Rahma, who took a lethal direct hit from an extended-range tear gas projectile at the Bil’in protest. The same type of “Non-lethal weapon” – according to the IDF – that had hit Tristan Anderson, an American activist, just a month prior to Abu-Rahma’s death, severely injuring him. Israeli newspaper Ha’Aretz reported that after the incident General Gadi Shamni, GOC Central Command, instructed that this specific projectile be put out of use. After several weeks the projectile was approved again, under limiting terms. Not limiting enough, it seems, to prevent the death of Abu-Rahma. As protesters often videotape the demonstration, his death was caught on camera. The footage isn’t easy to stomach. However, it’s important to watch and to notice two things: Firstly, how it is obvious that the soldiers are firing the projectile directly at non-violent protesters. It should be noted the projectile is a long and heavy metal object, shot at a high velocity. No one in their right mind would call something like that, when aimed directly at a person’s body, non-lethal weapon. Secondly, note Abu Rahma himself, wearing the yellow shirt. He is yelling towards the officer in charge, asking him to hold his men’s fire.
What name is there to this phenomenona, when a country takes land by force and against its own law, and uses lethally excessive force to break off the protests? Most people in their right mind would call it injustice. In the name of the law, of course. After all, the protests are illegal. And the law must be enforced. Right?
I completely agree with the point made in this post. However, I think that it is crucial to stress that the fact that the Israeli supreme court ruled against the current path of the wall in the lands of Bili’in, and not against its path in other places (such as Ni’ilin) does not mean much about the legality of it in those places.
In fact, the international court of justice ruled that the wall in (almost) its entirety is illegal. Moreover, the Israeli supreme court that approved, in principal, the legality of the current path of the wall under Israeli law using the justification of security needs only (including those of settlements, ultimately justifying the path beyond Israeli border – the Green Line), refused, in this ruling, to address the issue of the legality of the settlements themselves. To the best of my knowledge, this crucial point – the legality of any settlement beyond the green line (including in annexed territory such as Eastern Jerusalem and the Golan) – was never ruled upon by the Israeli court.
@Brown Brownie: I messed up the link – was intended to be only for one word that is missing here – ‘ruled’.
@Brown Brownie: fixed it for you. The correct way of linking a word is like so: [a href="{url}"] words you want to appear as link [/a]. Of course, replace square brackets with pointy ones.
@Rod Avissar: Walla Sababa. Thanks!
Brown Brownie – you are somewhat mistaken. The Israeli supreme court is well aware to the fact that settlements in the occupied territories are against the Geneva and Hague treaties. The settlements were contested many times in front of the supreme court, and each time new arguments and ways were found to justify them.
At the beginning all the settlements were under the guise of military outposts and the land grab was justified as military necessity, which the Hague convention allows. However when Alon More was built the settlers themselves refused to cooperate with the charade, and declared that they are civilians. The Israeli government found other manipulations to overcome it, but the paramount of Israeli ruling in that respect, as far as I’m concerned, is the statement of the hon. Miriam Ben Porat from 1979 when the supreme court dealt with the case of the land grabbing for the construction of the settlement Beit-El. She stated that the term “permanent settlement” (in Hebrew: “ישוב קבע”), forbidden by the Hague treaty, is a “mere relative term” (in Hebrew: “מונח יחסי גרידא”). And here – all the settlements were purged.
All this can be found in the report done by B’Tselem which can be found here . This is, I think, a must-read for every Israeli citizen (but who am I kidding).