Ofer - Detention until conclusion of proceedings, Fines
Translation: Marganit W.
The incomprehensible (yet routine) things heard at Ofer hearings
Judge: Major Sivan Omer
Plea agreement in the case of
Hamam Majed Taha Kareka
Defense: Atty. Ibrahim Al Arej
The first clause in the revised indictment is “rendering service to an unlawful organization.” This sounds serious until you read the protocol: “participated in receptions and funerals of released prisoners and Hamas activists; transferred Hamas flags from one activist to another.”
The second charge is: “Throwing objects at people and property,” and the third, “throwing an incendiary object”. Here too one should read the details. It turns out that in 2017 he threw rocks about 50 meters from Rachel’s Tomb, and he threw a Molotov cocktail at a 70 meters’ distance. The protocol notes that there was no damage.
However, the protocol also notes that there are “considerable evidentiary difficulties” and “forgoing evidentiary arguments would save much time in the process.” In other words, the detainee realized that an evidentiary trial would take a very long time with zero chance of acquittal, so he confessed.
Penalty: 14-months prison time starting with day of arrest, plus two clauses of probation, for 5 and 3 years. Yet another Palestinian prevented from participating in demonstrations.
In addition, there is a 3000- shekels fine.
Judge: Major Noam Briman
A particularly long and not very clear hearing in the case of
Fuad Muhammad Amer Sharaha
Defense: Atty. Jamal Hamed.
This is a hearing requesting remand extension until the conclusion of proceeding.
The prosecutor argued that the detainee had helped another Palestinian to enter Israel. He was incriminated by Adeeb Shapade. The prosecutor further argued that the violation poses risk and thus no alternative to imprisonment should be considered.
The defense argued that the detainee is more than fifty years old with no criminal record and has a legal permit to enter Israel.
He also mentioned that there is a family feud between the detainee and his brother and that the latter is the father of Adeeb, whom Fuad allegedly helped enter Israel.
The attorney presented Adeeb’s testimony. It was all very complicated. The attorney argued that his client is being harassed because of the family feud.
It was apparent from the attorney’s presentation that for Israelis all Palestinian names sound the same: Abu Ayoub, Muhammad Darwish and other names are cited indiscriminately and none of the investigators cares to sort them out.
The judge found evidentiary difficulty in the main witness’s testimony and decided to ignore the risk in favor of a high deposit and other conditions. This is no cause for celebration since the terms are very harsh; they include a 10,000 shekel deposit and guarantees by a third party with an Israeli ID to the tune of 5,000 shekels.
The guarantee will be checked in court on 15.7.19, i.e., in a week’s time.
The detainee’s son was in court. He was visibly stunned by the terms of release. He told the attorney that there was no way they could come up with such a sum, nor find a guarantor. The attorney told him that at the next hearing, they should tell the judge about the financial difficulty and perhaps he would reduce the sum.
In the meantime, the detainee is to remain in custody. We wonder what is the point of ‘alternative to prison’ when there is no way the detainee can fulfill the conditions of the release. (We do not expect an answer…)