Israel defends right to arrest foreigners in West Bank
State argues legal right to detain non-Israelis, even in areas under Palestinian control.
By Chaim Levinson Tags: Israel news West Bank IDFThe state argued Tuesday that the Israel Defense Forces has as the right to make arrests in Area A on the basis of a 1970 order that does not allow unauthorized persons to stay there for more than 48 hours without permission from the military commander.
The state made the argument in Tel Aviv District Court in defense of the decision to arrest Ariadna Jove Marti and Bridgette Chappell, two international activists, in Bir Zeit near Ramallah last month.
Marti, who is from Spain, and Chappell, from Australia, were arrested on February 7 in Area A, which is under full Palestinian control. They were arrested and were immediately to be expelled from Israel but an appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in their release.
In court Tuesday, attorney Omer Shatz and Yiftah Cohen argued in their appeal that the State of Israel has no authority over civilian matters in Area A, and therefore the arrest of the two activists was illegal - and they must be allowed back into Ramallah.
For its part, the state said that Marti and Chappell belong to the International Solidarity Movement, an organization "that supports an ideology that is anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian and universally revolutionary."
The state maintained: "The organization's activists are involved in activities against the security forces in areas of friction in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem."
The two were "taking advantage of their tourist visas so they could participate in demonstrations in areas of friction," the state argued.
During deliberations earlier this week before Judge Oded Mudrik, representatives of the Shin Bet asked to present classified information on the two activists. The judge rejected the request and said the material was "irrelevant" to the decision to expel the two, as their activity does not pose a security threat.
At a later stage, the state presented a military order from May 1970 that allows entry into Judea and Samaria but forbids making the area a place of residence, temporary or permanent, or for more than 48 hours "unless the military commander permits this personally."
The state argued that the two activists were not given such permission.
In its response the state did not answer to the argument that Bir Zeit is in Area A.
Mudrik ordered the expulsion delayed by a further seven days so the two can appeal against the order to the Supreme Court.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Judea and Samaria are like Lusitania and Pannonia - names for parts of countries that no longer exist. As such the words are material only to historians.
dose this apply on foreign settlers and foreign soldiers who come to volunteer with IDF? of it is just those who know arabs and stay with them?
Funny how you and israeli leaders like to use the Oslo accords as a reference. Didn't Sharon declare the Oslo accords null and void ? how about Bibi ? How convenient.
There are zero Iranian protesters in the West Bank. They would not be allowed in through Israel (the only way in to the West Bank). And if the West Bank is Israel (and you do control all it's borders) why doesn't everyone within those borders have a vote in Israel general elections? Stop calling yourselves a democracy.
Go and peacefully protest in your own countries, like Iran.
..."cracking down" on folks takes a lot of clear-headed thinking to make sure you've got the line drawn correctly between "essential" and "convenient." Get it wrong and you can find yourself standing knee-deep in a big steaming pile of unintended consequences.
Those who ask, "what occupation?" now have their answer. A higher court may disagree and hold that Israel is constrained by its subsequent agreements, like Oslo. But the current argument by Israel and accepted by the courts is that the occupation is total and has absolute authority. Kinda makes one wonder what happened to Geneva IV. Maybe the Palestinians should sue for the back rent due, as provided by Geneva IV and Israeli law. What's the amount due monthly for Ariel? This ruling directly impacts that, too.
When a state calls demonstrations against occupation "activities against the security forces" while the state itself is illegaly in the West Bank then I have just 2 words left to this farce: Pariah State!
the pa have never performed the oslo agreement so its null and void . they aer still aterror organisation . this is confirmed by its acceptance of ad hoc reasons for non negotiating which change with the seasons !
the name has never been palestine a roman colony after 137ad.100 years after the supposed crucifixion ! yet palestine has been used by christians instead of judea and samaria for centuries .
A what, from when?? illegal order: 1970 OSLO accords: 1993 "the state": needs a hint solution: get out
Demand Israeli citizenship.
... the State is claiming that the Oslo agreements that created Areas A, B, and C are a big ol' steaming pile of horse manure, because all that really matters is Israel's seizure of military authority back in June 1967. Thanks for clearing that up, guys...
..."representatives of the Shin Bet asked to present classified information on the two activists. The judge rejected the request and said the material was 'irrelevant' to the decision to expel the two,".... At which point the Shin Bet reps in the court would have toppled back onto their arses in complete and utter stupification...... Who ever heard of a judge not playing the game? When was the last time a judge denied Shin Bet the right - yes, the RIGHT!, damn you - to play its foolproof, never-failed-before "Get out of goal, do not pass Go" card? **chortle** I bet the Shin Bet heavies were muttering dark things into their sherries *that* night.....
There is no Judea and Samaria its Palestine
you powers are going to rightly be restricted to your own (internationally agreed) back yard