Palestinians in the Occupied Territories still in need for learning about the Israeli legal system's reverberations.
According to Geneva Convention of 1949, in Article 64 specifically, stipulates that,
"The penal laws of the occupied territories shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offenses covered by the said laws..."
An aerial photo mapping the terraces of the disputed land inside the red line/ (the State Attorney)
This Convention contextualized the legal regulations under military rule including human rights shall be ensured. It was preceded by Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 had been groundbreaking before the commencement of WWI in setting up laws following the war and under the military rules.
This actually, creates a jurisdiction applied by the military ruler over unarmed civilians who sometimes unaware enough of its items. Their daily life is managed accordingly as a foreign law which has repercussions on the other hand.
The experience I'm going through in human rights field sharpens many probing questions hovering over to figure out how the Israeli military law is arranged in the Palestinian Territories where the Palestinian grievances are being brought up at military courts to find their fair verdicts by judges dressed up with the military uniform, it prompts me to wonder whether the officer who sets down on his bench in front of the claimants understands their civil rights from a military perspective or not.
The 4th of June was the day marked the first episode at an Israeli military court for me. The purpose to be there is coordinating between an Israeli lawyer doesn't speak Arabic and his Palestinian clients who don't speak Hebrew, on the other hand. The lawsuit had been raised, it addresses a land claim and settler transgressions from the adjacent area to the disputed land where placed an illegal outpost called "Beit Ayn" neighboring Safa and Beit Omar villages.
The lawyer had called me asking for an urgent meeting with those clients live in the aforementioned villages and for whom a human rights organization in Jerusalem is working. He aimed to explain to them how to be aware enough of the affidavit they already gave to keep on without change that might expose the case to a potential nullification because of inconsistency between the documented affidavits if they proved to be contradictory, as well as, the lawyer informed them concerning the lack of settler violence constantly as they claim orally and some documented literally. Furthermore, there are aerial photos were taken which geographically elaborate the disputed pieces of land in detail prove that those claimants have not been to their land since 1989. They firmly denied it.
At the session, the judges arrived dressed up with military uniform. I had forgotten that military court isn't only dedicated to military personnel or those who carry out onslaughts against military and security targets. But, to those who live unarmed under the military rule, irrespective what kind of litigation they have or over which claim.
Before the session took place, the lawyer repeated his assertiveness to his clients regarding the credibility of aerial photos that might have in front of the judge, "don't belittle them, and to overcome this barrier, you must insist on your affidavit about settler violence that has prevented you access to the land up till then," he said.
To get this successful done, they need to step up for putting an end to the constant violence which requires not denying aerial photos, it may put the case at risk. The clients denied what's documented in claiming that they have been regularly to their land.
At the end of the conversation with the lawyer, one of them -an old man in his seventies- called "Mohammed Salibi" insisted on his attitude, "these aerial photos are baseless, I head up to my land on a regular basis. I, consequently, won't tell lies in the court." He was uncompromising showing distrust appeared on his wrinkled face, I have no doubt that he didn't trust the lawyer either.
Losing the land is regulated according to the "Ottoman Land Registration Law" that Israeli Authorities still finds it adaptable, stipulates that, "if the land is abandoned for a period of 10 years, shall be seized by the ruling power. Thus, these photos clarify a long period of their absence.
Dating back Hague regulations we find out that article 46 stipulates,
Therefore, Salibi hadn't a solid aware that the judge in front of him won't believe his oral testimony and disregard the aerial photography that was made by licensed expert had been hired by a formal aspect.
So, in order to convince the judge that they've not been to the land due to settler violence, in addition to tangible clues lead to the fact that the land hasn't intentionally been abandoned, they should confirm what's clarified in the photos.
Eventually, this stride comes out to install hurdles on the path of applied "Absentees Property Law" concerning the properties have been abandoned for more than a decade which categorized as without owners.
In the first round, Khalil Thalji addressed based on the existing reality, "Well, I admit that I have never been to the land not because this land whose ownership is documented under our ownership since more than dozens of years is abandoned," and wisely continues, "It's because there is a conclusive evidence that the land including farmers who could barely and painstakingly get into, can't access normally due to violent settlers from the adjoining outpost "Beit Ayn" who come down to kick us out of it."
There was the State attorney whose position is against the claimant, with his investigative questions in an attempt to bring out any gap could prove the case unsubstantial and lacks a realistic evidence to get it nullified.
Thalji could overcome the shrewdly directed questions proving that the land is not abandoned, it's cultivated with olive and old growth trees including seasonal crops. The drawback is regarded to systematic violence by settlers. Other than that, nothing holds him back accessing the land.
The second round began with Salibi, he, unfortunately, gave in to his emotionality rather than rationality. The case, basically, requires shrewdness and eloquence in the way how you give your testimony. First of all, consistency is very important to keep the case convincing. Therefore, Salibi's uncompromising position got him into complication with unclear statement, "I have been to my land despite everything, I go there regularly plowing, sowing and cultivating it," he continues, "However, since I won the suite after 8 years of struggle peaked with a final decision from the high court that proved my claim, I face some challenges accessing it as documented in the first testimony."
Then, the hunter -the State Attorney- found his prey in the trap, asking, "how come you go regularly to your land which aerial photos prove the contrast between both affidavits the previous and today's one? It means that settler violence is untruthful, and the area is safe."
During the session, the lawyer felt upset, "the suit might be lost after this absurd testimony, the court will find him a liar," said Yair, "why he is insistent on his position? Didn't we explain to him that the judge believes only the documents in his hands? However, compatible oral testimony adds more credibility," he added.
I asked Salibi, why did he reject what's documented in the photos? He said, "I was very concerned that if I had confessed that I have never been to the land since the given date, the suit might have been lost."
Sailibi didn't want to show a weak position believing that Israelis confiscate abandoned land so that he wanted to prove his constant attendance there. He, probably, thought that the lawyer would cheat him, or has had previous experiences made him a skeptic.
This matter, in fact, reflects a great extent of how Palestinians under the Israeli military rule are still ignorant concerning the Israeli regulations. For me, too, I have no background of how the entire legal system functions in the Occupied Territories.
Supposedly, there are civil institutions in our society conduct symposiums for introducing the Israeli military rule including courts work, and how the rights of unarmed civilians living under it are treated.
To get this successful done, they need to step up for putting an end to the constant violence which requires not denying aerial photos, it may put the case at risk. The clients denied what's documented in claiming that they have been regularly to their land.
At the end of the conversation with the lawyer, one of them -an old man in his seventies- called "Mohammed Salibi" insisted on his attitude, "these aerial photos are baseless, I head up to my land on a regular basis. I, consequently, won't tell lies in the court." He was uncompromising showing distrust appeared on his wrinkled face, I have no doubt that he didn't trust the lawyer either.
Losing the land is regulated according to the "Ottoman Land Registration Law" that Israeli Authorities still finds it adaptable, stipulates that, "if the land is abandoned for a period of 10 years, shall be seized by the ruling power. Thus, these photos clarify a long period of their absence.
Dating back Hague regulations we find out that article 46 stipulates,
"Private property must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."It's incumbent upon Israeli occupying military force providing protection for the properties of occupied people.
Therefore, Salibi hadn't a solid aware that the judge in front of him won't believe his oral testimony and disregard the aerial photography that was made by licensed expert had been hired by a formal aspect.
So, in order to convince the judge that they've not been to the land due to settler violence, in addition to tangible clues lead to the fact that the land hasn't intentionally been abandoned, they should confirm what's clarified in the photos.
Eventually, this stride comes out to install hurdles on the path of applied "Absentees Property Law" concerning the properties have been abandoned for more than a decade which categorized as without owners.
In the first round, Khalil Thalji addressed based on the existing reality, "Well, I admit that I have never been to the land not because this land whose ownership is documented under our ownership since more than dozens of years is abandoned," and wisely continues, "It's because there is a conclusive evidence that the land including farmers who could barely and painstakingly get into, can't access normally due to violent settlers from the adjoining outpost "Beit Ayn" who come down to kick us out of it."
There was the State attorney whose position is against the claimant, with his investigative questions in an attempt to bring out any gap could prove the case unsubstantial and lacks a realistic evidence to get it nullified.
Thalji could overcome the shrewdly directed questions proving that the land is not abandoned, it's cultivated with olive and old growth trees including seasonal crops. The drawback is regarded to systematic violence by settlers. Other than that, nothing holds him back accessing the land.
The second round began with Salibi, he, unfortunately, gave in to his emotionality rather than rationality. The case, basically, requires shrewdness and eloquence in the way how you give your testimony. First of all, consistency is very important to keep the case convincing. Therefore, Salibi's uncompromising position got him into complication with unclear statement, "I have been to my land despite everything, I go there regularly plowing, sowing and cultivating it," he continues, "However, since I won the suite after 8 years of struggle peaked with a final decision from the high court that proved my claim, I face some challenges accessing it as documented in the first testimony."
Then, the hunter -the State Attorney- found his prey in the trap, asking, "how come you go regularly to your land which aerial photos prove the contrast between both affidavits the previous and today's one? It means that settler violence is untruthful, and the area is safe."
During the session, the lawyer felt upset, "the suit might be lost after this absurd testimony, the court will find him a liar," said Yair, "why he is insistent on his position? Didn't we explain to him that the judge believes only the documents in his hands? However, compatible oral testimony adds more credibility," he added.
I asked Salibi, why did he reject what's documented in the photos? He said, "I was very concerned that if I had confessed that I have never been to the land since the given date, the suit might have been lost."
Sailibi didn't want to show a weak position believing that Israelis confiscate abandoned land so that he wanted to prove his constant attendance there. He, probably, thought that the lawyer would cheat him, or has had previous experiences made him a skeptic.
This matter, in fact, reflects a great extent of how Palestinians under the Israeli military rule are still ignorant concerning the Israeli regulations. For me, too, I have no background of how the entire legal system functions in the Occupied Territories.
Supposedly, there are civil institutions in our society conduct symposiums for introducing the Israeli military rule including courts work, and how the rights of unarmed civilians living under it are treated.
No comments:
Post a Comment