You are in > International
International
October 10th 2006
Prisoners of the wall
Tamar Pelleg Sryck, a lawyer for HaMoked: Centre for the Defence of the Individual, based in Jerusalem, talks to 21st Century Socialism about human rights under the Israeli occupation.
How did you get into the kind of work you are doing?
When I was about 50, I was vice-principal of an art teachers training college, called Hamidrasha. I was very happy; then all of a sudden things started tumbling down, strangely enough because Likud came to power. The school was very liberal, very humanistic, and very, I would say, anarchistic - of course, not officially so. We could do what we wanted and then all of a sudden they started telling us what we should do. The principal left, I was left alone and I didn’t like it and I said, OK, early retirement. But one had to think about something. And I had an idea that studying law – the legal profession leaves one free to retire how and when, whenever one wishes. So that’s how it started.
Human rights in Israel at that time were not that well known. There was a very small association called ACRI, Association for Civil Rights in Israel; I didn’t hear about it then, it was really very small. And I thought more about defence of workers, industrial law, workers rights. And during the four and a half years of my study, which was in parallel with my work (because one has to earns a living, or somebody else’s living) ACRI developed. And when I got my licence, a year a year after, the Intifada [Palestinian uprising] broke out. And the same year, a senior lawyer left. So this coincidence…
What year was this?
It was 1987. October ’87, and they couldn’t find anybody better than myself. No, I’m very serious. I was an old lady, which was for them lovely; they were for human rights, so they were also for the human rights of old ladies. And I got a job. It had nothing to do with the occupied territories. But the Intifada broke out 2 months later. And nobody really was interested within ACRI; but I was. So that’s how I got one mission, another mission, a third mission. And there I was, completely plunged into the business of the defence of the Palestinians in different ways; especially, but not only, in Gaza. And really I developed this branch of ACRI: defence of administrative detainees, prison conditions, torture, non-freedom of movement; I was learning and working at the same time, studying the subject. And it was a complete shock for about two years, a continuous shock. So that was the beginning.
Can you tell us what administrative detention means?
Administrative detention should by now be very well known to British people.
I wish!
In Britain, thanks to the ruling of the House of Lords, I was told it can not be applied to British citizens. But we are not going to talk about Britain.
Administrative detention gives power to an administrative authority - in Israel it can be either the minister of justice, if it is within Israel, or to the military commander if its in the Occupied Territories – the power to issue an order, a detention order, against a person whom he considers dangerous to the security of the state or of the territories, without court or trial, for 6 months, endlessly renewable. And they add, if the person cannot be put to trial. And the usual interpretation of this condition is, that the authorities have evidence that cannot be presented to the court. The evidence is privileged.
A state secret?
Yes. Because, if disclosed it will harm either the security service or the informer.
How long can people be detained?
Endlessly.
I have now a person who is still in detention, Nidal Abu Aker, from the Deheisheh refugee camp. A judge who has recently reviewed the secret evidence has ordered that he be released soon, but this may not happen. He has been in jail for over four years, as an administrative detainee. What is particular about him is that he was twice, in those four years, brought to trial, because they had some evidence. I don’t know why they treated him like that, it’s most unusual. He was sentenced, completed his sentence, but remained in jail as an administrative detainee and that’s interesting because one can be any time, even after one has finished a sentence, kept in administrative detention. He was again brought to trial, again he finished his sentence, and was again ordered back into administrative detention.
What has this person done?
This is the wrong question, addressed to me- you must address it to GSS: the General Security Service.
This case is outstanding in many respects. He admits that his ideology is leftist Marxist. In the latest election, he was a candidate for PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], which is a banned organisation, like Hamas. Strange as it may sound, one can stand as a candidate for a banned organisation in a legal election.
And in his case, he was brought to trial, so there, evidence was open. It was alleged that he was involved in military activities in his region.
In parentheses, I would like to say, in my opinion, that a military trial is not such a far cry from administrative detention, though not everyone will agree with me. So I don’t know whether to trust the verdicts.
So the two verdicts were reached at military courts?
Yes, of course.
Who decides who gets arrested and detained?
We are now speaking only about the Occupied Territories, OK? Legally speaking, the prosecution decides about presenting charge-sheets. The military commander – he is an administrative authority – decides who is going to be detained administratively. Basically, GSS decides – they control everything; they have a half-open control of the Occupied Territories – sometimes open, sometimes totally secret.
How many detainees are there?
In administrative detention, now there are roughly 700.
The overall number of those who are held is about 8,000. Most of them either have been tried in military courts, or will be tried.
Of those tried in military courts, almost all are sentenced by agreement, by deals. The defence and the prosecution make deals, by routine. This is more the dictate of the prosecution, the supremacy of the prosecution, rather than talks trying to reach some kind of reasonable outcome.
There is another story: I don’t know what you think, but the very existence of military courts is questionable. What was the crime of the person? Was there a crime at all? By what standard?
Where were most of these prisoners arrested?
Most of them were captured in the Occupied Territories.
So does Israel still claim that it has the right to go in and arrest people, inside the Palestinian Authority areas?
Absolutely. And in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority area is only about 12% of the territory. There is an illusion that the PA is a real entity. The areas over which they have security control are only spots on the map.
Please explain.
West Bank, according to Oslo [the 1993 Oslo Accord], which is still having its effects, its negative effects, is divided into three zones. Zone C is totally Israeli. Zone B is under Palestinian civil administration, and Israeli joint military supervision. Joint means always supremacy of Israel, and civil administration meaning that if the Palestinians cannot keep schools, it’s their problem. If they can’t keep hospitals, it’s also their problem. They have all the responsibility, and no authority.
Then we have Zone A, ‘properly’ under Palestinian control; it is now about 12% of the territory, which is unbelievable. So they have their policemen and whatever. But this zone is not immune from Israeli intervention. Legally, according to Israeli speaking, the army can (and does) - enter Ramallah, let us say, grab a person, and take him with them. Or if a person from Ramallah happens to be in Zone B, it’s easier, but not necessary. So Israeli military law, military-criminal law let us say, officially applies to Ramallah. And Ramallah is the unofficial ‘capital’ of the West Bank.
Oslo only changed the means of control. It established an authority, a Palestinian Authority, to be helpful to the occupiers in many different ways.
Do the Israelis apply the label of ‘terrorist’ to all the political prisoners they take, or are some purely political detainees?
First of all, there is hardly a Palestinian who would not, at least ideologically, support the military struggle [against the occupation]. You can always accuse a person of being a supporter. If you are an ideological supporter you may also give a glass of water, I mean this literally, to a wanted person. . And there is a clause in the military law: you can bring him to trial if he has extended some help, and literally for giving a glass of water. So it’s very easy to say that a person was involved in some kind of direct or indirect military activity. Maybe he wrote an article; maybe he gave a lecture.
Coming back to very clear, purely political detainees: in ’95, before the election to the PA Council, the sections which opposed Oslo had propaganda against the election, asked people not to participate. Practically all the leaders of PFLP were arrested before the election, to prevent them from expressing their ideas and calling on people not to participate in the election. They stayed in jail, most of them, until early 1998. There was a deal and they were released. Some of them were released before.
The idea that someone creates dangers for the security of the region doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a military activist. They keep saying that words can do more harm, sometimes, than rifles. That’s their expression. They do admit that people don’t have to be fighters [to be detained]. It’s called subversive activity: acting against the occupation in a non-military way.
Those people, they would rather have as administrative detainees than have them brought to trial.
Can you say something about the restrictions on movement in the Occupied Territories?
Until 1991, the First Gulf War, there was no restriction on entering Israel, there was no restriction on crossing Israel from Gaza to the West Bank, or from the West Bank to Gaza. There was restriction, and this was extremely painful in Gaza (everything is always more painful in Gaza) on leaving in order to come back. Just going for a trip abroad, or students wanting to study abroad.
In ’91, they cancelled what they called the General Permit, the General Permit to enter Israel, and one had to apply for individual permits; that’s when the whole story begins. It was aggravated with Oslo. And one of the issues was students. There were two universities in Gaza, with very limited scope for studies. Other colleges, teacher training colleges, etcetera, were in the West Bank. And Gaza students studied in the West Bank. Then they started playing with them: yes permit, no permit, general closure (which means cancelling all the permits). And it goes on till now; now, it’s a sheer impossibility for a person from Gaza to reach the West Bank, and extremely difficult to enter Israel for purposes of work. [Because of these restrictions] there are now very few people [from the Occupied Territories] who now work in Israel, and not continuously; compared to about 80,000 to 100,000 in the ‘good old times’ of the direct occupation.
And in terms of restrictions on movement within the West Bank, between villages, towns and cities?
This is new, and started with the second Intifada; now it has become absolutely awful. You can look on the site of Machsomwatch [http://www.machsomwatch.org/]. Maschom is a roadblock. These are women, most of them elderly women, who go to observe, and to help in extreme cases. It is absolutely unbelievable – the hours people have to stand, the denial of going to see a doctor… the bottom line is that a trip from Ramallah to Jenin that should take 45 minutes maybe, can take a day, or may not be achieved. And we have not mentioned the settlements and the Wall. But we are talking about details, and in the details you can forget the overall picture. And the overall picture is [about]: making life impossible.
To what end, for what purpose is life being made so difficult?
Have a guess. Make a wild guess.
To encourage people to leave, to destroy the economy and to cause a slow ethnic cleansing?
Absolutely. Or to make people accept, accept the position of fourth-rate non-citizens, who live on a very low level. The universities – why interfere with their studies, if not for that purpose?
One thing. In 1967, the Palestinians of Israel; let’s call them what they call themselves: the Palestinians ’48. In 1967, when they met Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, they discovered that the educational level of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza was much higher. It’s the opposite now.
Could you explain something about the settlements and the Jews-only roads?
Look, it’s a slow and steady development, it doesn’t happen abruptly. The settlements were kind of extensions of Israel, with Israeli law applying in them.
And how do they prevent the Palestinians going to the settlements or using the roads?
You have the soldiers standing there, and if you approach you are shot. First you are told, beware, we are going to shoot you, and then they will shoot you. No Palestinian would have the crazy idea of entering a settlement, unless he has a permit as a worker.
The law says that for security reasons these roads must not be used by Palestinians. And they have roadblocks.
We forgot that the prisoners are kept inside Israel, in violation of the Geneva convention. It’s important not because it’s legally forbidden, but also because family visits are controlled and prevented because it’s entry to Israel. So even though Palestinians visit their prisoners (this is organised by the Red Cross) they need permits. This is another way to drive them out of their minds. In Hebrew we have a good word, titurim [roughly translated as unbearable harassment].
Whatever we think about normal democracies, what is not forbidden is allowed - we have to think about it, but this is the slogan. In the Occupied Territories, what is not allowed is forbidden.
For example, in England, if they want to outlaw an organisation they say it is a forbidden organisation. In the Occupied Territories it’s called a not permitted organisation. The same about freedom of movement. You need a permit for everything, and that’s how the control of GSS comes in. Because in order to get a permit, you will very often be offered to ‘work with us’.
To become a collaborator.
It’s a very tricky business. Once you are offered, you are in a very difficult situation. And I have cases.
Often, they make these offers to decent people, who have no intention to collaborate, in weak moments of their lives. I’ll give you two examples.
One, a guy on the way to his own wedding, a respected person, marrying a girl from the upper class. He was from a village, but was an admired student at Nablus University. When he was all ready with the flowers, everything, on his way to Jericho, where his future wife lived, a car blocked his way: ' GSS, come with us, do you want to reach your wedding?'
He said no.
And he stayed three years in administrative detention. She waited for him and he married her.
What are collaborators asked to do?
If they feel that the guy is very negative, they give him a phone number, and tell him: if you change your mind, call us.
Or they will say, come on, it’s nothing; you have this neighbour, we are interested in your neighbour, or just in the village. Look, they offer it to Israelis too.
And them he has to meet them occasionally, or phone them, and tell them what’s happening in the village, for example.
I was told also, by the prominent late leader of Hamas in Gaza, Salah Shehada, the one who had a one-tonne bomb dropped on his head, killing 15 people. When he was in jail, he told me that he was dealing with people who had been drafted [as collaborators]. He objected to killing those people, and he was trying to bring them back.
And then he told me a story without a name, about someone who the GSS drafted when he was a young man. He was without means; they sent him to university. They made a career for him.
Going back to administrative detention, Salah Shehada was sentenced in 1989, to ten years. When he finished his ten years he became an administrative detainee; and that’s how I met him, as his lawyer.
How are the prisoners ill-treated?
Since 1999, when torture was basically forbidden by the Israeli High Court, they stopped systematic torture. But they have alternative means: denying meeting with a lawyer; threatening people, saying: we will arrest your wife; total isolation for 20 to 50 days. And now there is a new law for non-citizens, which makes it even worse.
What about the assassinations?
They do this in three ways.
People are killed under cover of an attempt to arrest them; sometimes when they come they really want to arrest and sometimes it’s just an excuse to kill.
Then there are the Mistaarevim, [squads of Israelis] who pretend to be Palestinians, people dressed as Palestinians.
Then, especially in Gaza, there are airborne assassinations, when missiles are fired from airplanes, for instance at cars.
How can it end, this nightmare? What would be a solution?
You first change the world, and then we will have a feasible solution. We are doing our business over there, but it’s a very small-scale business. What we, the leftists, can do… there are a limited number of people who hate what is happening, and protest.
I don’t think we influence the government. I don’t think we have presently an influence.
But in order to have change, you guys, what we call internationals…
But what should we call for?
You shouldn’t “call”. You should put an end to this kind of world, to all different expressions of, imperialist American…
The USA is responsible?
Yes, it is engaging Israel as an instrument in their struggle. And they failed in the latest war. I think they have to delay the attack on Iran because Israel failed.
Look at the Independent today. In October 2006, they have the headline: “The roadmap leads to nowhere”. They discovered it today?
I think most people and organisations support Israel in what is happening, the occupation, by keeping quiet, doing nothing.
But some states do support it actively, by denying money to the present elected government [of the Palestinian Authority]. By supplying arms [to Israel]. You have supplied arms during the war.
And they say that the economic boycott of the Palestinians has worked. You read it in the Independent. Of course it worked!
What can we do?
Expose what is happening and put it in the world context; stop Britain and America’s support for the Israeli occupation; give support to the opposition in Israel; and let the people of the region decide the solution.
What is the opposition in Israel?
I think the people who are proper leftists, in the sense of the Palestinian issue, are those who are in favour, as a minimum, of retreat without ‘buts’; retreat to 1967 borders, and remember, without ‘buts’. Because you can hear about retreat from numerous people, and then they all say: yes of course, but… so maybe we will exchange territories and they will get some [of the land]; and maybe not immediately because now Hamas is in power… etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
So clear-cut retreat. Take your settlers, take your arms and withdraw to ’67 borders. And negotiate then. Because negotiating with an occupied people, especially in the world context of today, it’s a joke, a very sad joke.
And where it comes together, it is that you work together with the Palestinians, whether Palestinians of the Occupied Territories or Palestinians ’48; it depends what you are doing, or to what organisation you belong, or what’s your job. But overcoming the poison of the wall that has been built since the beginning of Zionism.
The indoctrination went on for so many years, since the beginning of the previous century. A person born in Israel never had an opportunity to hear a different voice, unless from the Communist Party. And the Communist Party has also had internal differences due to this indoctrination. The Communist Party, in my lifetime, was the only place where one could meet Palestinians, except as workers and enemies. And even sometimes not as workers, because there was the slogan of Jewish labour.
So, under these circumstances, I’m fascinated by people, young people born in Israel, who reach a radically critical stance on what’s happening.
In answer to a question that here hasn’t been asked: why so few? Considering the circumstances, they are miraculous.
There were five demonstrations in Tel Aviv during the war [against Lebanon] each and every Saturday – and in other places too. The biggest was probably eight thousand, including Palestinians ’48.
And not just being against, but being there. Like the [Israeli] women of MachsomWatch. They are just walking around the Occupied Territories, going to the villages, sitting with people there. Just imagine – they are not afraid of ‘the Arabs’ – and I am using this word on purpose. They see what happens, and by their very presence, abolish the wall. And I don’t mean the new wall. The new wall is only the latest development – the wall has always been there.
For further information, see:-
HaMoked: Centre for the Defence of the Individual http://www.hamoked.org/
Machsomwatch http://www.machsomwatch.org/
International Solidarity Movement http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/