Court rejects charges against Gazans opposing blockade
State Attorney's Office indicted two Gaza fishermen who were paid by Hamas to participate in flotilla protesting naval blockade; judge throws out case, saying their plight is 'legitimate.'
The Be'er Sheva District Court ordered Monday the release of two Gaza residents who protested against the Israel-imposed blockade, determining that prosecuting them for this reason was immoral.
Judge Eliahu Bitan also ordered the release of Khaled Hassi, 24, and his nephew Muhammad Hassi, 18, who were charged with membership in a terror organization and use of terror property (Khaled was also charged with providing a service to a terror organization). The prosecution may appeal the decision to release them.
According to the indictment filed against them, Khalid Hassi was asked and agreed for $100 to join as a crew member on a boat that would sail beyond the Israeli-enforced maritime boundary of the Gaza Strip.
In May, nine Gazans, some wounded and disabled, and two journalists boarded the boat. The intention of the organizers was to be stopped and detained by the Israeli Navy in order to arouse world public opinion towards their plight. The boat was indeed stopped by the Navy and most of its passengers, including Hassi, were released and returned to Gaza.
According to the State Attorney's Office, Hassi’s actions constitute taking part in the activities of a terror organization in return for payment.
After a while, Hassi was again offered to join the crew of a boat leaving Gaza as an act of protest against the blockade, this time as a captain, in exchange for $300. This time he brought along his nephew Muhammad to help him. Before leaving port, Khaled was interviewed by Al-Jazeera TV at the request of a Hamas member and said the purpose of the flotilla was to lift the siege on Gaza, where the situation is grave. This time, when the boat was stopped, Khaled and his nephew were taken to Israel.
The State Attorney's Office requested that the two be held until the end of the legal proceedings against them and argued that their release would endanger public and state security. Magistrates Court Judge Sara Haviv ordered their detention until the end of proceedings.
Attorney Uri Deyigi and Lili Pattishi of the Public Defender's Office, representing the nephew Muhammad Hassi, filed an appeal on the grounds that the two took part in the flotilla because of their desire to protest the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip and that such a protest is "fundamentally legitimate."
During the hearing, it emerged that the two men had not been arrested in the territorial waters of Israel. Attorney Yoav Kishon, representing the state, argued that "the place of detention is irrelevant. I believe that Israeli forces have the authority to arrest residents of Gaza and any person who has committed an offense against the security of the state, anywhere in the world. The security situation today justifies the prosecution of people who participate in such flotillas."
District Court Judge Bitan, who accepted the appeal, noted that although the state claimed the flotillas had been organized by Hamas, and that the money paid to the two defendants came from Hamas, these facts were not stated in the indictment. In addition, during the interrogation of the flotilla participants, they said it was the "Committee to Lift the Siege on Gaza" and not Hamas that organized the protest.
Moreover, Judge Bitan found the prosecution's claims that Hamas had organized the flotillas and that the funds received by the defendants were "terrorist funds" as "quite weak."
The prosecutor claimed that Khaled’s interview with Al-Jazeera might influence international public opinion against the blockade, which could lead to pressure on Israel to lift the blockade. If the blockade is lifted, weapons could be brought into Gaza. Therefore, the interview should be viewed as an act against national security.
"The effect the prosecution wishes to attribute to the statements made by the defendant, a simple fisherman from Gaza, on world public opinion, and the monumental reactions that it expects would follow, are unfounded and exaggerated," wrote the judge.
"The blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip is justified in that it is intended to prevent the entry of materials, equipment and means that could harm Israel's security ... However, bringing a resident of Gaza to trial in Israel for complaining about the conditions that he and other residents of the Gaza Strip are in, seems to me to be a blatantly inappropriate step, both judically and morally," he continued.
Judge Bitan noted that the prosecution ignores the complexity and uniqueness of the situation between Israel and Gaza and of the circumstances of Gaza residents, who are controlled by Hamas. He also criticized the fact that the State Attorney's Office is trying to prosecute the defendant for statements made on television against the blockade, "something that would have been out of the question had it occurred in Israel, where such expressions are often heard as a matter of routine and nobody would consider putting someone on trial for it.”
Judge Bitan ordered that the case be returned to the Magistrate's Court regarding the terms of their release. The State Attorney's Office is considering filing an appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision to release the two defendants.
