Ofer - Conspiracy to Kill, Criminal Offence

Observers: 
Ivonne Mansbach, Hava Halevi (reporting)
20/12/2016
|
Morning

Translation: Marganit W.

 

The outer waiting court was very crowded and it soon became clear why. The electricity was cut off. The turnstiles and electric gatesinfo-icon were not working, perhaps the room with fortified black glass, where the ‘Deus ex machina’ sits, did not function, but we had no way of knowing. There was a big confusion and a young soldier with keys went from door to door and let the waiters in. The crowding outside slowed down the flow of people to the courts.

 

Courtroom 3

Justice: Lieut. Col. Haim Balilti

 

There were 30 names in the docket, 11 were accused of possessing and trading in combat materiel, 2 of membership and activity and one (Abu Rahme) of attacking and disturbing a soldier, which is the code word for activity that shows dissatisfaction with the occupation and the army’s presence in the Occupied Territories. The others were accused of throwing objects or firebombs. Apparently, to protect itself against weapons amassed in the territories, Israel is buying 9 atomic submarines and 35 Stealth warplanes.

 

Yihye Nabil Muhammad Abu Hassin – ID 858648124

Charge: membership and activity.

The hearing postponed to 15.2.17.

 

Muamman Mustafa Sirhan Mura – ID 854604469

Charge: aiming a gun at someone

The hearing was postponed to 15.2.17.

 

Again we realized that when members of the family are present, the defendants try best to appear at their best. Their faces droop when the family leaves.

 

Muhammad Gazi Fakri Salame – ID 852275486

Charge: Possessing and trading in combat materiel.

 

Unlike most Ofer detaineesinfo-icon, this is an older person. He is tried in conjunction with his son who is accused of the same violation. Perhaps it is because the son kept the weapons at home; it is not clear if Salame even knew about it.

The family could not be present because of the commotion at the entrance.

The hearing was postponed to enable uniting the cases. The attorney asked to send a memorandum to the prosecution on 4.1.17 that the hearing resumes on 11.1.17.

 

Azz-Al Din Kamel Rajeb Sarsour – ID 852275486

Charge: conspiracy to commit homicide.

 

From exchanges we gathered what the conspiracy is about. Azz-Al Din was sitting with friends in a public place and they discussed their wish to kill a soldier. They even discussed possible ways to do so.

The judge mentions that the defendant and his friends scouted possible locations for the attack, collected money for weapons, but eventually decided that the mission was too big for them.

Sentence: 30 months incarceration, 18 months suspended sentence for 5 years and 2000-shekel fine.

The judge invoked the defendant’s clean record and the fact that the plot was not carried out. No weapons were purchased. The other defendants in the case had all had plea bargains, so the penalty was coordinated with the other defendants’.

The usual question arises: Who told the Shabak [GSS] or the police or a collaborator about the conversation? How did the people end up in court? How many people were arrested? How many were interrogated? There was no evidence, no testimonies, no hearing.

 

Aataf Salem Harizat – ID 451170583

Charge: criminal

Aataf did not approve of his attorney and asked to replace her. Most attorneys are indifferent to such requests, but not so his attorney. She had an outburst and spoke angrily and loudly. Aataf did not understand her and looked scared. We could not figure out the problem. The judge did not interfere and left the attorney in place.

 

Courtroom 1

Justice: Lieberman

Charge: throwing objects

 

Atty. Avi Baram tries to correct the charge: it was not an object, it was a sack of garbage and it involved no risk.

Since the case included other defendants who had already been sentenced and it was established that there were no injuries or damage, the prosecution amended the indictment. The defendant is 34 years old, has 4 children, and it is doubtful that the charge is serious. The defense described him as “easily influenced.” He added that the defendant was the main witness in the case.

His wife, who attended the previous hearing, expressed anger at her husband’s “irresponsibility:” he should have focused on providing for his four children.