Law Enforcement in Hebron - Discrimination and the Chimera of Legality

The B'Tzedek Civil Liberties Organization and the Hebron Jewish Community.

Table of Contents

I Law Enforcement in Hebron: Discrimination and the Chimera of Legality -- Synopsis

II      The Development of the "Special Procedures"

III Substance of the "Special Procedures" -- Discrimination Against Jewish Settlers

IV The Results of the "Special Procedures" -- A Chimera of Legality

V The "Special Procedures" and the Shamgar Commission.

Appendix I Non-Enforcement of the Law Against Arabs in Hebron -- (More) Chimerical JusticeAppendix II

 Law Enforcement in Hebron: Discrimination and a Chimera of Legality- Synopsis -

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the course of 1994 and 1995, an Israeli government legal team headed by then-Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair formulated a set of law enforcement guidelines know as the "Special Procedures for Enforcing the Law Against Jewish Settlers in the Territories".

The "Special Procedures" -- which were classified and have been kept secret from the public until today -- were designed to enable law-enforcement bodies (the Israel Police, the State Prosecutor's Office, the Israel Defense Forces and the General Security Service) to conduct a coordinated campaign against the Jewish community of Judea, Samaria and Gaza aimed at checking and eradicating expressions of opposition by that community to the Oslo Accords and the policies of the Rabin government. The fundamental approach of those who developed the Special Procedures (an approach based on a cynical and distorted interpretation of the findings of the Shamgar Commission which investigated the violent events at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in February 1994) viewed the entire settler community population as a criminal and lawless society which must be suppressed and controlled. The Jewish community of Hebron was specially targeted in this regard.

The attached report, which is based on hundreds of documents and scores of testimonies, surveys and exposes the method by which the police were employed utilized against the Jews of Hebron. What emerges is a campaign of government-sponsored persecution -- a campaign executed by bringing enormous police resources to bear against an entire community, a crusade characterized by brutal violence, cruelty, animosity, invasion of privacy, selective prosecution and the wholesale initiation of criminal prosecutions which are in the main fictitious and baseless, and frequently absurd.

In tandem, a special monitoring team in the office of the Israel State Prosecutor -- headed today by government attorney Talia Sasson -- was created to ensure that charges against Jewish settlers are never dropped before trial.

As a result of all of the above, a state of inequality before the law and blatant discrimination has been created, and an entire community has been tarred with the brush of criminality. The Jews of Hebron have suffered egregious, cumulative harm: physical, economic and emotional damage, as well as stigmatization and a violation of their most fundamental civil rights including the right of self-defense -- all as a direct result of the "Special Procedures".

As the report demonstrates, the Jewish community of Hebron is characterized -- even several years into the campaign of selective prosecution -- by an extremely low crime rate. This fact completely refutes the basic assumptions of those responsible for formulating the "Special Procedures", and clearly indicates the need to abolish these procedures immediately.

The first appendix to the report paints a grim picture of the failure of the police and military prosecutors to enforce the law against Arab crime in Hebron. The legal authorities take an extremely lenient, even apathetic, approach to the Arab sector in Hebron, which exposes the Jewish community in the city to violent crime and assaults on a daily basis. The report demonstrates that the Israeli police in Hebron engage in selective law enforcement.

The second appendix surveys the negligence and lenience exhibited by the various authorities responsible for investigating, prosecuting and punishing violent police officers -- the Justice Ministry's Police Internal Investigations Department, the Israel Police Disciplinary Tribunal and the office of the Jerusalem District Attorney -- in handling scores of complaints filed by Hebron Jews regarding brutality and violence (and physical injuries) inflicted by the Hebron police.

Because the "Special Procedures" are classified and unavailable to the public, we cannot determine with certainty whether the pattern of discrimination and police violence revealed in the report is in accordance with the procedures, or reflects an over-enthusiastic implementation of the procedures by prosecutors and police.

In either case, it was incumbent upon the senior officials of the Israeli Justice Ministry responsible for formulating and implementing the "Special Procedures" to ensure that the application of the procedures in practice conforms fully to their letter and spirit. These senior prosecutors had a duty to prevent the abuses of the type revealed in the report.

In a democratic society, government policies and procedures must be available for public scrutiny, so that the both the policies themselves and those who formulate and implement them can be judged by the public.

 and the Jewish Community of Hebron demand:

B'Tzedek

1. Publication of the full text of the "Special Procedures", and all protocols, memoranda and other documents pertaining to them.

2. Formulation of uniform and equal law-enforcement guidelines for all Israeli citizens, including those residing in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

3. Proportional and equal enforcement of the law against all Hebron residents, Jewish and Arab alike, with an emphasis on the prosecution of serious crimes.

4. Suspension of all investigative and legal proceedings in cases opened against Jews in Hebron pursuant to the "Special Procedures", and a re-evaluation of all such cases with the goal of closing as many as possible.

5. Replacement of personnel in the Hebron police station, and the transfer of officers involved in clashes with Hebron Jews or against whom complaints of serious misconduct have been lodged, with the aim of creating a positive police-community relationship.

The Development of the "Special Procedures"

The Special Procedures (which remain in force even now!) were formulated in a series of meetings and consultations conducted by former Attorney-General Michael Ben-Yair, at Ben-Yair's personal initiative. The procedures were developed out of purely political considerations, and a basic hostility to the Jewish settlement movement.

1. "In November 1993, immediately upon assuming office, Attorney-General Michael Ben-Yair summoned senior officials in the army, police, State Prosecutor's office and the General Security Service to an emergency meeting. . (Tovah Tzimuki, Yediot Aharonot 23 June, 1995.) (Source #1)

"The meeting was devoted to examining means of dealing with possible disturbances by settlers in the territories in response to the signing of the Oslo Accords

This was the first in a series of discussions aimed at developing guidelines for Israeli law enforcement agencies to operate against the Jewish community in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which at that time led the political opposition to the Oslo Accords

2. We do not have access to the protocols of these meetings and deliberations. Nonetheless, we can ascertain the atmosphere and the attitude which guided them, from the following facts:

 

"Another important issue raised by Justice Ministry representatives, was the very close physical proximity between police and Jewish residents of Hebron and the territories. There is a potential for an unhsymbiosis, Justice Ministry officials stated . . . "

 

 

"Law enforcement in the territories . . . developed to a certain extent as part of the settlement policy and the especially warm relationship the settlers enjoyed with successive Israeli governments.

 

In other words: now that government policy regarding the territories has changed, and the "warm relationship" with the settlers no longer exists (to say the least) law enforcement guidelines should be changed as well. The new guidelines should be a function of the Rabin government's negative policy regarding the territories and the Jewish settlers.

* In a document labeled "secret" which was prepared by Ben-Yair following the first meeting in November 1993, he writes: "More police investigative resources should be assigned to operations in the territories . . . including . . . at the expense of police-work in other sectors" (Sources #1 and #3)

 

In other words: enforcing the law against the Jews of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (and especially Hebron) received extremely high priority from Ben-Yair and the bodies subordinate to him (police and prosecutors), as if a particularly high incidence of serious crime were at issue. (Below we will present accumulated data regarding these "serious crimes", which in fact included nothing more than a small number of minor infractions, and ask whether they justified such a massive allocation of police resources at the expense of other sectors such as narcotics, domestic violence, traffic accidents and property crimes.)

3. The deliberations in Ben-Yair's office continued from November 1993 until May 1995, with the participation of: Attorney-General Ben-Yair; Deputy Attorney-General Yehudit Karp; State Attorney Dorit Beinish; attorney Michael Shaked, Director of the Justice Ministry's Department of Special Assignments; the Judge-Advocate General of the IDF; Alec Ron, Israel Police commander in Judea and Samaria; a representative of the General Security Services (known only as "P.") and other senior officials. (Sources #1 and #2)

 

4. In June 1995 the final text of the "Official Procedure for Enforcement of the Law Against Settlers in the Territories" was presented to Prime Minister Rabin and the IDF Chief of Staff (Source #1). But as early as May 1995 -- a month before the procedures were presented to the government for approval -- it was reported that "most of their provisions are already applied in practice" (Tovah Tzimuki in Yediot Aharanot -- Source #4).

 

In other words, Ben-Yair and his associates were impatient, and they began to apply the procedures in the field even before the government had approved them.

 

 

Protocols were certainly made of all these deliberations. The existence of the "secret" report prepared by Ben-Yair in November 1993 and the "Internal Memorandum" sent to Rabin in early 1995 are also known. We demand the publication of the contents of these documents. (Source #1)* An "Internal Memorandum" sent by Ben-Yair in early 1995 to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin states: This report demonstrates the fundamental approach to the Jewish settler community -- that this community as a whole was to be treated as a criminal society, not worthy of the normal police-community relations enjoyed by all Israeli citizens. (Source #2)

Substance of the "Special Procedures":

Discrimination Against Jewish Settlers

"The new 'Procedure for Enforcement of the Law Against Settlers in the Territories' was drafted by the Director of the Justice Ministry's Department of Special Assignments, attorney Michael Shaked"

According to our information, two proposals were not approved:

 

 

2. A proposal to lower the age of criminal liability of the children in Jewish settlements to nine (9) years of age (instead of 12 years of age as obtains elsewhere in Israel).

 

A. Promulgation of an order by the OC Central Command of the IDF, similar to the order issued during the Intifada regarding Arab youths in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

B. Applying the Youth Ordinance (Care and Supervision) - 1960, by stipulating that the Jewish children in the settlements, are "incited children" (as former Police Minister Moshe Shahal claimed in the Knesset on 31.5.95) or "subject to a bad influence or living in a place regularly used for criminal activity" (Article 2 of the Ordinance).

 

What Elements of the Procedures Were Approved and Remain in Force Today?

1. Powerful and Hostile Police Presence

This proposal was dropped as well, apparently due to broad public and political opposition, from both the National Council for the Welfare of the Child and Knesset Members Landau, Porat, Ze'evi and Deri, who exposed the matter at length in a Motion for the Agenda in the Knesset on May 31, 1995. To this end, two alternatives were considered:1. A proposal for "expedited trials" -- in military courts -- of active opponents of the Oslo Accords and those suspected of violating administrative orders. This proposal was dropped because of the concerns of Prime Minister Rabin, Chief-of-Staff Ehud Barak and the IDF Judge-Advocate General that it would have a "boomerang" effect, i.e., that "overtly military institutions would be exploited as a platform for political incitement against the army, and would drag the IDF into the political struggle" (Source#1).

A. Virtually all reports regarding the special procedures refer to a "significant recruitment of [police] manpower" (Sources #1 and 2). To this end, police recruiters offered especially attractive terms to those willing to serve in the Judea and Samaria.

 

B. One of the "problems" identified by Ben-Yair (according to reporter T. Tzimuki) was that "police and IDF personnel in the territories have over the years developed a deep identification with the settlers. The main reason: most of the Jewish policemen operate in the same hostile environment, suffer from the same attacks as do the settlers".

The method of dealing with this "problem": mass recruitment of non-Jewish policemen.

C. Special police units called "Israeli Agitators" (IA) squads were established. Here is the testimony of policeman Omri Ben Meir in the Jerusalem Magistrates Court on May 6, 1996: "In April 1995 I was serving as an investigator in an IA squad. This unit had eight investigators". This detective also testified about his own operational activities against the Jewish settlers: "I sometimes go out into the field. Carry out arrests, conduct reconnaissance." (Source #5)

A comparison of the number of officers assigned to the IA units in the Hebron police department with that allotted to units in the department dealing with regular criminal tasks and the Arab sector reveals a clear disparity, considering the vast difference in size and crime rate between the two communities.

A situation has been created in which the settlers -- unlike their Arab neighbors and their fellow-Jews elsewhere in Israel -- conduct their lives under a police "magnifying glass". (The tragi-comic results of this hyper-scrutiny will be surveyed below).

D. Police have been given orders to deal with the settlers with an "iron hand" -- this particular expression was repeated numerous times in oral testimony given to the authors on condition of anonymity by police stationed in Hebron.

 

The result: within a short time many Jewish residents of Hebron -- including children younger than 12 -- suffered beatings and physical injuries at the hands of the police. It soon became apparent to the Jews of Hebron that the police were there neither to protect nor to serve members of the community, but rather to persecute, humiliate and abuse them. A state of intractable hostility between the Hebron police and the Jewish residents soon developed.

(We will detail in a separate chapter the use of violence by the Hebron police and the handling of resultant complaints by the Police Internal Investigations Department -- a division of the State Prosecutor's Office).

The result: the ratio of police to civilians in Hebron is higher than even that in high crime areas in Israel. (As Ben-Yair indeed had suggested in his "secret" memorandum). (Source #1). The proposed draft was submitted to the government for approval in June, 1995.* Israel Radio reporter Carmela Menashe reporting on one of the meetings:.

2. Multiple Criminal Complaints and Mass Arrests

A. Police were instructed to file as many criminal complaints as possible against "the settlers". (Sources #1 and #4) While this order might not violate the strict letter of the criminal procedure code, it has neither been issued nor implemented anywhere else in the country, for a very simple reason: nowhere in the country but Hebron does the average citizen find a restless and unoccupied policeman every few meters.

The result is that the Jews of Hebron have had an enormous number of criminal complaints filed against them, for minor infractions legally defined as "de minimis" (so insignificant as to be non-prosecutable).

B. Police were ordered to make as many arrests as possible, and to request extensions of remand in each and every case. This policy emerges clearly from the testimony of police commanders in Hebron, provided to the authors on condition of anonymity, that arrests were conducted because of "orders from the State Attorney's Office". This testimony is confirmed by the "secret" memorandum prepared by Ben-Yair himself: "A tougher approach must be taken . . . including the use of appeals in pre-trial arrest proceedings".

This policy is also reflected by the scores of arrests carried out against Hebron Jews.

By now, a majority of the Jews in Hebron aged 12 and older have been arrested at least once, and a significant minority have been jailed overnight or longer. Space does not permit us to detail the dozens of police-initiated arrests ended only by court-ordered release of the suspects, and the terrible suffering and gross infringement of basic civil liberties caused thereby.

We will suffice with presenting one of many available examples, noteworthy because the consternation and admonishment of the judge were preserved in the court protocol:

On September 22 1997, Ronen and Anat Cohen were arrested for asking Hebron policemen to wait ten minutes for the owner of a car parked near Beit Hadassah to return, before towing the car. The arrest, which was carried out in the presence of the Cohens' young children, was violent and accompanied by kicks and blows. The judge who ordered the Cohens' immediate and unconditional release from custody could not contain his amazement at the circumstances of their arrest: "Why not wait ten minutes? . . . I really must ask: why not wait ten minutes?! (Source #6)

The stationing of massive numbers of policemen in Hebron and the special instructions given them have created a state of perpetual friction, which is directly responsible for producing the vast majority of criminal complaints against the Jewish residents of Hebron.

We can state without hesitation that stationing a police force of this same size and type, and armed with the same instructions, in any other neighborhood in Israel would produce results similar to those which occurred in Hebron, i.e.: criminal complaints against a significant percentage of the residents of the neighborhood. However, in any other neighborhood it is quite possible that the residents would prefer to simply move away in order to escape the intolerable conditions -- an option which is out of the question for the Jews of Hebron.

3. Special Monitoring Unit

"A special monitoring unit was created in the State Attorney's Office, headed by attorney Michael Shaked, which was assign to track the investigation and prosecution of the cases."

Under the direction of this special unit, indictments were filed against Hebron residents which would not have been filed against any other Israeli citizens:

* Old files which had long gathered dust were "raised from the dead", as the following examples indicate:

-- thus reported journalist Tovah Tzimuki in May, 1995. (Source #4) (To the best of our knowledge, this unit is headed today by attorney Talia Sasson)

 Criminal Case No. Year Indictment Filed Year of Incident

 C.C. 4997 1996 1994

 C.C. 624 1995 1993

 C.C. 1514 1995 1992

 C.C. 1548 1996 1993

In all of these cases, the charges were for extremely minor infractions.

* Indictments were filed in cases based entirely on the testimony of a single witness

The Israeli State Attorney went even further in C.C. 893/95, a case based entirely on the testimony of a single witness against defendant Eyal Noked. Prosecutors decided to charge Noked with "providing false information" and "obstruction of justice" because in his statement to police he dared to contradict the account of the sole prosecution witness!

* Indictments were filed for petty infractions

For example:

In C.C. 4551/97 Avraham Shmuelevitz was charged with "interfering with a policeman performing his duty". Why? Because he "refused to identify himself when asked to do so by officer Ohad Avrahami and . . . again refused to give his particulars when asked to do so by officer Yaakov Cohen". This is the entire substance of the indictment against Shmuelevitz.

In C.C. 3412/97 Shalom Alkoby was charged with "interfering with a public servant", because he "parked his vehicle in a spot which the soldier forbade him to park".

In C.C. (Juvenile) 156/96, Yair Hizmi was charged with "aggravated assault" for "exchanging blows" with an Arab youth his own age (who had initiated the fight, according to testimony at the trial).

In C.C. (Juvenile) 239/97, Ro'i Cohen was charged with battery of an Arab minor his own age, after he "pushed the complainant and knocked him to the ground". Would a fistfight between teenagers, with no weapons and no injuries, be grounds for an indictment anywhere else in Israel?

In C.C. 3799/95 Yitzhak Malka and Moshe Ben Aryeh are charged with "violating a lawful directive" and "interfering with a public servant", after "traveling from Kiryat Arba to Hebron without authorization and without proper escort".

* Indictments were filed even when serious complaints against the arresting officers were pending action in the Police Internal Investigations Department of the Justice Ministry -- a clear violation of explicit guidelines issued by National Police Headquarters.

 

 For example

In C.C. 4346/95, Ben-Tzion Vetaro and Mishael Chaikin were charged with "aggravated assault of a police officer", "making threats" and "interfering with a policeman performing his duty". The indictment was filed while the Police Internal Investigations Department was investigating the commander of the Hebron police and other officers on charges of false arrest, and officer Amin Hassan on charges of running a person over with a police vehicle in the course of the same arrest. (PIID file 3700/95). And indeed, in the course of the trial it has emerged that the arrest was in fact illegal, and the resistance to it therefore lawful.

In C.C. 4271/95 Ronen and Anat Cohen were charged with "creating a public disturbance", "insulting a public servant" and "obstructing a police officer". The indictment was filed even though the Police Internal Investigations Department was still actively examining complaints against officers Eli David, Ariel Mesilati and others (PIID cases 1621/95 and 1933/95) for illegal entry into a private home, false arrest, illegal use of force and infliction of injury. Officer Eli David was in fact tried in disciplinary proceedings for the incident, and acquitted only on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

In C.C. (Juvenile) 262/96, eight boys and girls from Hebron were charged with "creating a disturbance" and "continuing a disturbance after being ordered to disperse", and in C.C. 3955/97 five young women were indicted on the same charges, for protesting the unlawful arrest of youngster Yair Hizmi. This, despite the fact that the PIID has not yet concluded an investigation (PIID case 2669/95) against the arresting officers.

:"When in the course of examining a criminal complaint against a citizen a police prosecutor has grounds to believe that a complaint was filed with the Police Internal Investigations Department against any police personnel involved in the incident . . . the police prosecutor shall stay the proceedings and the making of a determination in the case until he is notified of the decision of the PIID . . . if it emerges that the testimony and the probity of the suspect police personnel are of central importance to the disposition of the case, proceedings against the citizen shall be suspended until the conclusion of proceedings against the police personnel. (National Police Headquarters Guidelines no. 06.03.03)The standing police guidelines state:

(See for example: C.C. 3732/95, C.C. 434/96, C.C. 3922/95, C.C. 1515/96, C.C. 2714/94, 4997/96).

It should also be noted that aside from violating standing police guidelines, the filing of indictments in these cases also contradict a judicial rule according to which:

This rule, first established in 1957, was cited by the Deputy President of the Jerusalem Magistrates Court, Judge Tzvi Zilbertal, in a decision in the case of Hebron resident Doron Avikazar. In acquitting Avikazar of "assaulting a police officer" and "interfering with a police officer performing his duty", Deputy Court President Zilbertal strongly criticized the behavior of the police in unlawfully arresting the defendant.

For example:

In C.C. (Juvenile) 127/93, Hebron teenager Yehuda Lebowitz was charged with "violating a lawful directive". The charges arose from an incident in 1992, which occurred one day after Yehuda's brother had been stabbed in Hebron. In a hearing held in 1995 -- 3 years after the fact -- Judge Uri Ben David recommended to the prosecuting attorney that the case be dropped. The prosecutor's response, as recorded is the protocol, was that "after a discussion with the head of the prosecution branch it became clear to me that in these types of cases there are orders not to drop charges. These orders are from the State Attorney." (Source #8)

The youngster was ultimately acquitted.

In C.C. (Juvenile) 309/96, minor Yedidya Lebowitz was charged with "obstructing a police officer". Lebowitz was accused of opening the door to a police cruiser and allowing the escape of a Jewish girl who had been arrested -- and placed in the vehicle on Shabbat -- on suspicion of having spit on an Arab, following the stabbing of another Jewish girl in Hebron. The sole witness against Lebowitz was the arresting officer. The prosecuting attorney was asked twice by Judge Uri Ben-David to drop the charges. At one point the judge stopped the proceedings, in order to enable the prosecutor to receive telephone authorization to close the case. The prosecutor's reply, as recorded in the protocol: "We recommended rejecting it". (Source #9)

The case was subsequently thrown out by the court.

For purposes of comparison we would point to C.C. 1153/95, where an indictment was brought against a person who is not a settler for the serious crime of "battery of a minor". The defendant in that case was Peace Now activist Meir Margalit. Margalit was charged with strangling a 12 year-old Jewish child in Hebron. However, charges against Margalit were dropped at the orders of the chief of the prosecution's branch of the Israel police in Jerusalem, Shaul Naim. Naim declined to prosecute due to "a lack of public interest, and after the suspect undertook not to violate Section 379 of the Criminal Code, for a period of half a year . . ." (Source #10)

This example starkly and chillingly illustrates the policy of institutionalized discrimination practiced by the Israel Police and State Prosecutor's Office.

The Results of the "Special Procedures" -- A Chimera of Justice

The substance of the Special Procedures and their manner of implementation have created a situation in which most of the Jews in Hebron are formally classified as lawbreakers with criminal records:Multiple Criminal Complaints

As of today, approximately 50 indictments are pending in the Jerusalem Magistrates Court against Jewish residents of Hebron. In a similar number of cases, legal proceedings have already been concluded.

In total, about 100 indictments have been filed against a population of 500 (which includes many underage children).

Moreover, several hundred criminal files against Jewish residents of Hebron (in which an indictment has not yet been filed) are still pending in the Hebron police.

Likewise, several hundred criminal cases against Hebron Jews -- including both prosecuted and closed cases -- are recorded in police computers. The subjects of these "criminal" records will find their advancement in the army and the employment market permanently blocked. The Substance of the Indictments -- Vindication of the Jews of Hebron

A careful examination of the crimes with which the Jewish residents of Hebron have repeatedly been charged reveals that they are virtually always the result of police abuses, and the unconscionable policy of placing an entire community under intensive police scrutiny.

Indeed, despite this intensive and invasive scrutiny, the Hebron police have uncovered during this period neither an "underground" nor serious crime of any kind (including what is often termed "ideological crime").

Even during the difficult days of the supremely important struggle against the Israeli withdrawal from Hebron, members of the Jewish community did not break the law and did not engage in violence. This, despite the very real threat posed by the withdrawal to their lives and those of their families and children, as well as to the entire Hebron settlement enterprise. This fact utterly refutes the stereotyping of the Hebron settlers by their political opponents as violent outlaws -- a stereotype which served as the very basis of the "Special Procedures".Legal Results

As noted, approximately 50 criminal trials have been conducted against Hebron Jews in the past two years. The generally positive resolution of these cases by the Israeli courts indicates clearly that the hostile policies of the Israel Police and State Prosecutor's Office were a failure and flawed from the outset:

* A significant portion of these cases concluded with the complete exoneration of the defendant or acquittal on the benefit of the doubt.

* In a large number of cases most of the charges were dismissed as baseless during the trial.

* Convictions have been extremely rare. Even then, the courts have either imposed nominal punishments or none at all.

We can safely assume that the 50-odd cases currently before the courts will be resolved similarly.Suffering Endured by the Jews of Hebron

While the vast majority of criminal cases opened against Hebron Jews are resolved positively, the lengthy legal proceedings cause great suffering and harm to the defendants -- many of whom are mere youngsters -- and their families. These include:

* Hours and days of work or school lost to frequent court appearances

* Attorney fees which run to thousands of dollars per case. (In fact, many of the Hebron defendants cannot afford an attorney, and fully half go to trial without legal representation).

* Unremitting fear, anxiety and emotional distress for periods of months or years, particularly for juvenile defendants.

* Blocking of personal advancement in many fields (education, military service, employment etc.)

All this, in addition to the regular hardships associated with living in Hebron.

The pain and anguish experienced by victims of these unjust law enforcement policies and their families was expressed eloquently by Etta Lebowitz, a Hebron resident and mother of 10, in a letter to Magistrates Court Judge Uri Ben David:

"Look at my children -- are we a family of outlaws? Are we criminal parents, raising a brood of 10 criminal children, God forbid? What does the future hold for my 4 little ones: will the police embitter their lives too?"

Moreover, a particularly absurd and dangerous situation has developed recently:

Jewish residents of Hebron against whom criminal cases have been opened are liable to lose their rights to bear arms in self-defense and defense of their families, even though they have never used a weapon unlawfully or assaulted Arabs in any manner. These rights are restricted even in cases that the IDF and the General Security Services do not recommend doing so.

The Hebron police opposes issuing IDF weapons to Jews living in the heart of Hebron in a state of perpetual mortal danger -- Jews whose only crimes are "insulting a police officer", "assaulting a police officer" or "interfering with a policeman performing his duty" (Source #11)

One Incident - Two Standards of Justice

Gross travesties of justice have occurred in not a few cases of clashes between Jewish and Arab residents of Hebron, when the Jews at the scene were arrested and charged while no action whatsoever was taken against the Arabs involved.

For example:

In C.C. (Juvenile) 156/96, Hebron teenager Yair Hizmi was charged with "aggravated assault" against an Arab youth. A soldier who witnessed the incident testified: the Arab boy fought with the Jews . . . he stood in the middle [of the way], apparently to make them move. It seemed like a power game. The [Arab] kid was about 15-17 years old. The Jews were between 10-15 years old . . . the Arab began to use his hands . . . the Arab seemed to be stronger and started to go wild . . . he hit the Jewish boy . . ." (Source #12)

In C.C. 4271/95, defendants Ronen and Anat Cohen were indicted for charges stemming from an incident in which Jewish children were attacked by a mob of stone-throwing Arab adults, while playing in the petting zoo next to Beit Schneerson in Hebron. The Jewish children responded in kind to their attackers after their requests for protection from IDF soldiers went unanswered.

Police officers who arrived on the scene chose to arrest the Jewish children only. Ronen and Anat Cohen were also arrested, for attempting to prevent the illegal arrest of children under the age of 12 years. The Arab stone-throwers were not arrested, and the police refused to initiate criminal complaints against them.

One of the children, who had been injured by a stone, insisted on filing a complaint against the Arabs and for a period of 2-1/2 years conducted an extensive correspondence in an effort to discover the disposition of the case. On recently did he learn that the Arab attackers turned out to be serious criminals, and that as a result of his complaint and insistence on pressing charges an investigation against them was conducted which led the discovery of other crimes and their sentencing for long prison terms. (Source #13)

In light of the above, we can state beyond a shadow of a doubt that if not for the faulty handling of the incident by the police to begin with, the charges against Ronen and Anat Cohen would never have arisen.

In C.C. 575/94, Noam Federman was charged with two counts of attempted assault and one count of aggravated assault against Arabs. The "victims" were part of an Arab mob which had attacked Federman's house with a rain of stones and bottles. At trial, the defendant agreed to admit the charges against him in response for an acknowledgment by the prosecution that the Arabs had initiated the violence. The findings of Judge Lachovitsky, who decided not to impose punishment on the defendant despite his confession, are worth quoting at length:

"There is no dispute that the Arab side started the stone-throwing, and that the Jews threw stones only in response. The prosecution agrees that the Jews of Hebron endure daily harassment from the Arab residents of the city . . . in his statement to the court the defendant concedes that his reaction to the Arab mob exceeded reasonable bounds. It is true, as the prosecution contends, that the defendant was prohibited from taking the law into his own hands. However, it seems to me that in light of the circumstances the defendant should not suffer the full force of the law. Ultimately, the defendant acted as he did in order to protect his home and his family, whether security forces intervened . . .or not . . ."

(Source #14)

Significantly, Judge Lachovitsky also expressed his amazement:

"It is astonishing that of all those who took part in the clash on both the Arab side and the Jewish side, it was the defendant and the defendant alone who was prosecuted."

Incredibly, the Israel State Prosecutor's Office has elected to ignore the decision in the Federman case, and has recently filed a nearly identical indictment against Hebron resident Shalom Alkoby. During the month of December 1996, Alkoby's house was firebombed on an almost daily basis. In C.C. 3412/97 Alkoby was indicted for "daring" to chase down one of the bombers.

Effectively, the Jews of Hebron suffer double discrimination:

*

* They are mercilessly prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- and even beyond -- whenever they respond to or attempt to defend themselves from Arab violence, by the very same Israeli authorities who turn a blind eye to these Arab crimes.

This ludicrous state of affairs was exemplified during a rock and firebomb attack on Beit Hadassah in April 1997. With rocks landing in the children's beds in the home of the Hizmi family, an officer of the Hebron police arrived at the scene . . .

. . . to carry out an arrest warrant against a member of the family.

These are the absurd and sorry results of the "Special Procedures for Enforcement of the Law Against Settlers in the Territories" !

 

 

The Special Procedures and the Shamgar Commission

They are exposed to repeated manifestations of violent, aggressive and dangerous Arab crime, which is virtually ignored by Israeli law enforcement authorities. (In a separate chapter we will discuss the "chimerical justice" which obtains regarding the Arabs of Hebron)

* Harm to the reputation, personal dignity and self-image of defendants

The police, it should be recalled, had initiated no action whatsoever against the Arabs and instead arrested the underage Jewish children who had been stoned, and the adults who rushed to their aid.

Yet it was the Jewish boy who was prosecuted, while the Arab youth was neither arrested nor charged.

During the deliberations of the 1994 State Commission of Inquiry Regarding the Massacre in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, headed by former Supreme Court President Meir Shamgar, the phrase "chimera of legality" was incessantly drilled into the public consciousness by hostile newsmedia as both a biting characterization of the purported state of law enforcement in Hebron, and as a pat slogan to accompany calls for a crackdown on the settlers' alleged "lawlessness".

As we have noted, the Special Procedures were created to achieve partisan, purely political goals. Rather than confess that law enforcement powers were being harnessed to advance a political agenda however, former Attorney-General Michael Ben-Yair and his colleagues in the Justice Ministry exploited the anti-settler atmosphere engendered by the Shamgar Commission -- with no little assistance from journalists and commentators anxious to put a violently anti-settler "spin" on the Commission's deliberations and findings -- as a convenient pretense for formulating the Special Procedures.

Indeed, because much of the evidence and testimony presented to the Commission by the State Attorney's Office and senior police officials was and remains classified, there exists a very real possibility that the information submitted was specifically tailored in an effort to bring the Shamgar Commission to conclusions and solutions promoted by these bodies for years.

Nonetheless, it is indisputable that both the Special Procedures themselves and the destructive consequences produced by them stand in complete contradiction to the recommendations of the Shamgar Commission.

The Commission concluded that:

"The criminal investigation and prosecution policy implemented must be identical to that applied for all other crimes committed in any other area in which the governmental agencies of the State of Israel are functioning.

(Emphasis added)

The Shamgar Commission in no way recommended applying a policy of repression, harassment and stigmatization against an entire community following the isolated events in the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Indeed, if such a policy was really lawful, legitimate and desirable, why was the entire population of Herzliya not targeted by Israeli law enforcement agencies following the assassination committed by Herzliya resident Yigal Amir?

Against all odds, the Hebron Jewish Community has come through the difficult test with flying colors. Despite intensive and aggressive police scrutiny over a period of several years, and the daily violence directed toward it by the Arabs of Hebron, this community has proven itself free of serious crime.

The time has come to let the members of this law-abiding community alone, and to redirect police resources to fighting crime elsewhere in Israel.

Appendix I

- Non-Enforcement of the Law Against Arabs in Hebron -

(More) Chimerical Justice

According to the information available to the authors, the relevant Israeli agencies (i.e. the Israel Police and the IDF military prosecutor) apply a lenient and -- apparently -- intentionally lax law enforcement policy to the Arabs of Hebron.

Below we will survey the manifestations of this approach, at every stage of the criminal justice process.

1. Cases Opened Against Arabs

  -- thus reported officer Avi Tarar of the Judea-Samaria District Police in a letter to Hebron resident Malka Chaikin. (Source #1)

"In the first half of 1997 alone, 1,048 cases were opened [by the Hebron police] against Arabs"

However, according to a rough estimate, the number of files opened against Arabs -- 1048 -- is less than half the number of violent crimes known to have been committed by Arabs during that same period (the first half of 1997) in the area of Hebron under Israel control (area "H2").

We would note also that during this time-period there were 16 days of violent rioting in Hebron. On each day of rioting, scores of Molotov cocktails and hundreds of rocks were thrown by Arab rioters. This is in addition to the "regular" daily regimen of terror and violence in Hebron during this period, which included scores of stonings, firebomb attacks, assaults, incidents of incitement and desecration of Jewish holy places. (Source #2)

Why then only 1048 criminal cases?

Officer Tarar refused to respond to this question, but the answer can easily be deduced from the facts presented in his letter. Tarar describes the crimes for which files were opened: "various incidents of rock-throwing, planting of bombs, possession of explosives and attacks on police and soldiers". (Source #1)

In other words, files were opened for serious crimes only. There is no mention of numerous minor charges known to have been regularly committed by Arabs, such as creating a public disturbance, defacing property, disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, insulting a police officer, interfering with a public servant, vandalism, etc. -- charges for which many dozens of criminal cases have been opened against Jews in Hebron.

Insulting and denigrating police officers and soldiers have never been grounds for criminal charges against Arabs in Hebron. On the contrary: soldiers who have responded to their assailants were court-martialled and jailed.

For example: in January 1997 police officer Ami Griber was attacked in downtown Hebron by an Arab who attempted to strangle him. Griber arrested the Arab and then immediately released him without charges, claiming that the man was "old". (In fact, the Arab was no older than Hebron settlement leader Rabbi Moshe Levinger, who has been repeatedly charged for petty offenses.)

  For example: During the serious riots and disturbances which took place next to Beit Hadassah in March and April 1997, in which Arabs threw rocks into courtyards and residences, injured children and damaged property, police commanders informed the Jewish Community that the police were forbidden to take any action (including filing charges, conducting investigations, surveillance photography of rioters, etc.)

Even serious crimes committed by Arabs in Hebron are not always dealt with by the Israeli police.

When Jewish representatives wrote the government minister responsible, demanding to know the reason for this policy of inaction and whether it was in accordance with "orders from above", they were notified that "enforcement policy in Area H2 in Hebron is under the jurisdiction of the IDF, which maintains general responsibility for regional security." (Source #3)

It emerges, therefore, that the Israel Police (by its own admission!) does not as a rule take any law enforcement actions against Arab rioters in Area H2 and leaves the matter in the hands of the IDF alone, thereby knowingly ignoring the serious criminal aspect of their behavior!

The month of July 1997 proved an exception to this rule. During that month Arab rioters were captured by undercover forces, and "pre-planned offensive activities by an investigations unit" of the Hebron police were carried out, in the course of which Arab "youths who had thrown stones and incited . . . were arrested" -- according to a press statement made by the spokesman of the Judea-Samaria District of the Israel Police on July 17, 1997).

In fact, during the month of July '97 alone, 449 criminal files were opened against Arabs by the Hebron police -- more than twice the monthly average of 175 files. (These figures are derived from the response of Internal Security Minister Kahalani to a Knesset query tabled by MK Chanan Porat and from the letter to Malka Chaikin from officer Tarar (Source #1))

If 449 cases had been opened against Hebron Arabs each month between January and June, 1997, the number of files opened would have been in excess of 3,100 instead of the paltry 1048 which were actually opened.

The enormous difference between the data for July 1997 -- when the police took offensive action against Arab rioters -- and those for other months, is the very difference between enforcement and non-enforcement of the law!

Another problem: the police refuse to investigate crimes committed by Arabs unless there is a complainant, even when they have clear evidence of the crime and the identity of the perpetrators.

For example:

* On January 14 1995, a group of Jews was attacked by an Arab mob hurling stones and firebombs. The attack was captured on film and broadcast on Israel television. Yet the police did not open an investigation or take any action against the Arab rioters. When representatives of the Hebron Jewish community attempted to discover how the police intended to deal with the rioters, they were informed by police commander M. Gilboa of the Judea-Samaria District that "anyone who was injured or a witness to the events is free to contact the Hebron police station directly" (Source #4)

* The Hebron police refused to open an investigation against an Arab who committed an indecent act against a Jewish minor, despite the fact that a photograph of the Arab taken at the moment of the crime was provided to the police. According to the police, "in order for evidence to be presented in court, the complainant against whom the crime was committed must testify in court". (Source #5)

This policy is a violation of Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that the police initiate an investigation whenever a crime is reported, irrespective of whether or not a complaint is filed by the victim.

This approach also stands in complete contradiction to the substance of the "Special Procedures for Enforcement of the Law Against Settlers in the Territories". The Special Procedures require that criminal charges be pressed against Jewish settlers in every instance, even when no complainant is available. (Sources #1 and 4, in Chapter I). 

In fact, indictments were filed against Hebron Jews even in the absence of a complainant or victim. In C.C. 1516/96 for example, Mr. Shmuel Ephraim Rosensteof Hebron was charged with "assaulting a local youth whose identity is unknown to the prosecution". Likewise in C.C. 3955/97, Mrs. Etti Asulin was indicted for "assaulting a border policeman, whose particulars are not known to the prosecution".

Moreover, the Hebron police regularly refuse to open files against certain Arab criminals, whom the police have labeled "mentally unbalanced", even when they are suspected of committing serious crimes and dangerous acts of violence.

So, for example, an Arab woman who on July 22, 1995, butted a border policeman and bit his partner, was freed without arrest, bail or any charges. (Source #6) Likewise, an Arab youth who infiltrated the Avraham Avinu Jewish residential compound in the dead of night on November 30, 1997, was set free, despite the fact that a sharpened dagger was found at the point of entry. (Source #7) Because the police defined them as "unbalanced", no criminal proceedings were taken against these two dangerous criminals. To the best of our knowledge, only a court of law -- and not the police -- is authorized to find a suspect psychologically unfit to stand trial. When a violent offender is found to be mentally unfit the court orders that the person be hospitalized, and does not simply send him back onto the streets.

Furthermore, when members of the Jewish community attempt to file criminal complaints against Arab assailants, the Hebron police often stall for unconscionable lengths of time -- sometimes up to several hours -- before permitting the complaint to be lodged. Complaints against Jews, by contrast, are handled swiftly and efficiently, and often entail needless, brutal arrests which are carried out even before the complaint is verified. In many cases, it later emerges that the information provided by the Arab complainant is false. (Abundant evidence of such false complaints is in our possession and will be made available upon request).

These delays in the initial police handling of the complaint often critically impair the investigative and evidence-gathering process, deter potential complainants and are a prime reason for the relatively small number of police complaints lodged by Jewish victims of Arab violence.

 :

Summary of this section

There is substantial reason to believe that the police intentionally refrain from opening criminal cases against Arabs in Hebron, except in cases of especially violent crime. By applying this policy, the police grossly discriminate against the Jewish community of the city, and knowingly violate provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In our estimation, the sum total of criminal files opened against Arabs in Hebron does not exceed 25% of the number of such crimes known to the police.

2. Locating Suspects

  writes officer Tarar, "in 433 of which were suspects located". (Source #1) In other words, according to their own figures, the Israeli police have located only about 40% of these Arab suspects.

"In the first half of 1997 alone, 1,048 cases were opened against Arabs"

We can be certain that a police department anywhere else in Israel which succeeded in locating a mere 40% of suspects wanted for violent crimes (which are the type of crimes described in officer Tarar's letter) would hardly boast of this "accomplishment", and would be expected to show a drastic improvement. Hebron, however, is different -- there the emphasis is on cracking down on Jewish crime, as negligible as it may by any objective standard.

According to the information available to the authors, the means utilized by the Hebron police to apprehend suspects vary radically depending on whether the suspect is Jewish or Arab:

  police maintain a "mugshot album" containing pictures of most of the Jews arrested in recent years (in many cases submitting to being photographed is a condition of release on bail). This album is shown to any Arab who appears (or is brought to) the Hebron station to file a complaint against a Jew.

For the Jewish sector --

Likewise, photographs have been prepared -- with the assistance of the General Security Services -- of nearly every Jewish resident of Hebron, in order to identify "potential criminals". (Source #8) For this purpose, Jewish residents of Hebron not suspected of any wrongdoing were surreptitiously photographed while going innocently about their business.

  the Hebron police have no mugshot album, and a Jew interested in filing charges against an Arab attacker is forced to travel to the Etzion police station, some 20 miles away. Needless to say, no effort has been made to create a photographic record of the entire Arab population of Hebron, as was done to the Jewish community.

For the Arab sector --

Even the gravest cases -- e.g. the axing of a Jewish girl in the head (Source #9), the stoning and wounding in the skull of a Jewish girl (Source #10), the shattering of windows in a children's' bedroom by stones (Source #11) -- are closed without the perpetrators being located. (In the last case listed, the file was closed by the police on the same day the complaint was made . . .)

Summary of this section:

The efforts expended by the Hebron police in apprehending suspects, and the success of these efforts, differ greatly depending on whether the suspect is Jewish or Arab. Only 1 in 4 crimes committed by Arabs in Hebron produce a criminal file, and of these a further 60% are closed because the police fail to locate the perpetrator.

3. Transfer of Responsibility to the Palestinian Authority

The Hebron police routinely transfer cases dealing with crimes committed by Arabs against Arabs to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

This practice stands in complete contradiction to the Hebron Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which provides that "Israel will retain all powers and responsibilities regarding internal security and public order in Area H2". (Article 2(a)(2))

This practice is not only an unilateral concession and intentional waiver of the rights (and obligations) which the Hebron Agreement gives the Israel Police -- it also constitutes an indirect blow to the security of the Jewish community in the city, since ostensibly "intra-Arab disputes" are frequently products of connections the Arab parties have with the Jewish community or the State of Israel.

One case transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority involved an Arab arrested after infiltrating the Avraham Avinu neighborhood in order to attack Jews, apparently with a dagger found nearby. This incident was declared a "dispute between Arabs" by the Hebron police, and the suspect was transferred to the custody of the PA. It is not difficult to imagine the "punishment" meted out to this criminal by the Palestinian Authority . . . (Source #12)

We demand an investigation to identify the person or body responsible for the decision to transfer powers of the Israel Police in Area H2 to the Palestinian Authority, in violation of an Agreement to which the government of Israel is a signatory!

4. Release From Custody

The Hebron police routinely release Arab suspects from custody without bail, and without serving them with a court summons.

This policy emerges from written communications from Colonel Ainat Ron, the IDF Chief Military Prosecutor to Hebron Jewish community representatives. (Sources #13 &14)

Colonel Ron herself admits the sorry results of this failed policy: "In these circumstances, prosecution becomes virtually impossible."

Contrast this with the treatment of Jewish suspects, who are freed only after posting stiff bail of between 1,000 and 5,000 shekels. In one case, police demanded that Hebron resident Gershon Bar-Kochba sign a 25,000 shekel bond in order to release a 14 year-old boy from jail.

5. Prosecution

In letters to Hebron Jewish community representatives, the IDF Chief Military Prosecutor stated that in respect to those Arab suspects released from custody there is a "difficulty in conducting a trial". Colonel Ron also reveals that in Area H2, which is under the nominal jurisdiction of the IDF and the Israel Police, "the authority to issue court summonses belongs to the Palestininian Authority."

We demand to know who authorized the transfer of these powers to the Palestinian Authority -- in contravention of the Hebron Agreement -- when it is abundantly clear that the PA will make no real effort to bring to justice Arabs who stoned IDF soldiers or attacked Jewish youngsters.

Col. Ron anticipates "difficulty in prosecuting defendants" -- defendants against whom indictments have already been filed -- but does not even raise the possibility of issuing bench warrants against them, though their identity and whereabouts are known to the police.

Evidently, bench warrants are not executed -- nor even issued -- against Arab suspects in Hebron in order to bring them to trial. (Needless to say, this is not the policy of law enforcement authorities regarding Hebron's Jews.)

In this manner, the number of Hebron Arabs brought to justice for criminal activities is reduced even further.

6. Plea Bargains and Slaps on the Wrist

In virtually all of the files we have reviewed, Arab defendants received light, and even ludicrous sentences. Upon further examination, we discovered the cause of this phenomenon: in almost every case, IDF military prosecutors offered the defendants lenient plea bargains.

 :

For example

In C.C. 2120/97, C.C. 296/97 and C.C. 1915/97, three Arabs who committed indecent acts against Jewish girls were sentenced to "time served" -- which in this case was a mere 8 days -- and a suspended sentence, one was ordered to pay a 200 shekel (about $65) fine and one was not punished at all. (Source #15)

Lenient punishments of this type have no deterrent effect on the Arab criminals, and do not afford any law enforcement protection to their victims, many of whom live in close proximity to these repeat offenders.

And it goes without saying that the Special Monitoring Unit within the Israeli Justice Ministry, established to ensure maximum enforcement and prosecution efforts against the Jewish settlers, does not concern itself with criminal cases against the Arabs of Hebron.

7. Early Release From Custody

  (Note that these convicts represent that tiny minority of Arab criminals against whom charges were filed, summonses were served and executed, and meaningful punishments were handed down)

A significant number of Arab criminals sentenced to long periods of incarceration are released long before their sentences are served.

These early-releases are the products of understandings and agreements between Israel and the various terrorist organizations and the PA, or of "goodwill gestures" by Israel in honor of Moslem holidays.

This state of affairs means that not infrequently, a Jewish victim will testify in court against his Arab assailant, learn with relief of the lengthy prison term imposed on him -- and then encounter the Arab free on the streets of Hebron only a few months later.

8. Wholesale Closing of Cases

  so wrote the former Deputy Chief of the Israeli General Security Service, MK Gideon Ezra, to the Attorney-General. (Source #16)

"To the best of my knowledge, cases against Arabs in Hebron were closed after being transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority"

Evidently, along with the powers it granted the Palestinian Authority, Israel transferred to the PA criminal files opened by the Hebron police against local Arabs. These files have apparently been closed by the Palestinian police (at least insofar as they relate to attacks on Jewish civilians and Israeli security personnel).

SUMMARY

The information presented above paints an extremely grave picture of the state of law enforcement against Arab offenders who prey with impunity on the Jewish community of Hebron, and of the lack of protection afforded by Israeli law enforcement bodies to the repeated victims of these serious crimes.

At the same time, Jewish efforts to resist the violence -- which are to a great extent a natural product of a well-founded lack of faith in the will of law enforcement agencies to apprehend, prosecute and punish the assailants -- are treated by those same agencies with the utmost severity and the full force of the law.

If these disparities may be attributed in some small measure to the fact that the IDF military prosecution and courts (which have jurisdiction over the Arabs) do not operate exactly as do the civil courts and state prosecution (which have jurisdiction over the Jews), the same cannot be said of the police: the utterly different treatment meted out by the Hebron police department to the Jewish and Arab communities clearly indicates a policy of selective and discriminatory law-enforcement.  

Appendix II

The "Iron-Hand" Policy

Police Violence Against Hebron Jews

and the Response of the Police Internal Investigations Department

Over the past several years, many Hebron residents have found themselves and their families -- including their children -- victims of violent assaults by officers of the Hebron police department. Some have suffered medical injuries: a broken finger; a lip split open by a blow from a fist; auditory impairments; brain concussions; gynecological injuries, etc. Other victims got away with "mere" contusions and bruises. The violence has included: beatings with fists; kicks (including kicks to the stomach); pounding heads against walls; tackling and stomping; violent slaps; gouging with fingernails; choking; twisting of arms; cracking of children's' heads together.

Some residents filed complaints with the Israeli Justice Ministry's "Police Internal Investigations Department" (PIID), in the hope that the offenders would be punished and the phenomenon thereby eliminated. Yet after nearly 3-1/2 years, during which dozens of complaints supported by photographs and medical evidence have been lodged with the PIID, we can say definitively that the PIID is not doing nearly enough to prosecute violent policemen.

The handling of these complaints by the various agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting and punishing violent police officers -- the PIID, the State Attorney's Office and the Israel Police Disciplinary Tribunal -- reveals a lamentable pattern of extraordinary lenience towards the offenders, and contemptuous indifference toward the victims.

Below is a brief survey of the defective handling of these complaints by the various agencies responsible. (The survey relates only to complaints of serious violence, and does not include the scores of complaints filed for unlawful and offensive behavior and harassment, which was not accompanied by violence.)

THE INVESTIGATIVE STAGE

1. In at least two instances, the PIID sought to avoid opening an investigation:

PIID file 2938/94 contained a complaint by Ronen and Anat Cohen regarding an attempt by a policeman to run over a pregnant woman and several children in Hebron. As a result of the incident the woman experienced a premature delivery. The PIID attempted to transfer the complaint to the traffic bureau, so that it would be handled as a simple "traffic violation". (Source #1)

PIID file 3332/94 was opened following a complaint against policeman Yaakov Izun for lifting 2 Jewish children aged 10 and 11 into the air, and smashing their heads together. Representatives of the PIID who appeared before the State Comptroller Committee in the Knesset in December 1994 claimed that the complaint "never reached the PIID". Only the determined intervention of former MK Esther Salmovitch led to the opening of an investigation of this atrocious crime.

2. Unrelated cases were combined by the PIID

In PIID file 3332/94, complaints by different persons against different policemen for different incidents were combined and treated as one case. The PIID claimed that this irregularity occurred because the complainants had similar names. This blunder crippled the investigation and the disposition of the case, caused great heartache to the victims -- and reflects the careless manner in which the PIID conducts investigations of this type.

3. The PIID disposed of complaints without hearing testimony

In many cases the PIID ruled on complaints without hearing the testimony of witnesses or even that of the suspects. This practice was followed in PIID files 2938/94, 3204/94, 2170/96, 1954/95, 2179/97, and possibly in 3332/94, 1621/95 and 1933/95. (See table).

4. Complainants' testimony was passed on to the policemen accused

The contents of complaints against policemen were conveyed to the policemen themselves in the course of PIID investigations. The police officers involved generally retaliated immediately by filing criminal charges against the complainants, or against witnesses who corroborated the complaint. This phenomenon HAS deterred many victims of police lawlessness and violence from filing complaints with the PIID. In our estimate, only about 30% of such victims dare to lodge a complaint.

In one case, the complainant was actually summoned to the Hebron police station, where he was charged with "giving false testimony". The sole grounds and "evidence" for this charge was none other than the complaint he had filed with the PIID against officers in the Hebron station. (C.C. 2019/95)

In the course of this case it emerged moreover, that the PIID investigator responsible for handling complaints lodged by Jews in Hebron, Mr. Natan Rashman, is the father of one of the detectives in the Hebron police station, Meirav Rashman. Only when MK Limor Livnat submitted a direct Knesset query to former Justice Minister David Libai on the matter, was this serious conflict of interests rectified. (Source #2)

DISPOSITION OF CASES

In most of these cases, the PIID closed the complaint file for "lack of culpability" or "lack of evidence", and occasionally for "reasons of public interest". As previously mentioned, the decision to close the file was taken in some cases before the investigation was completed, when the evidence gathered was still sparse. (See attached table)

1. In some cases complainants were never sent formal notice that the file had been closed with no disciplinary action taken. Other complainants received vague and incomplete information -- e.g. that disciplinary charges were to be filed against a certain officer, with no mention of the fact that the cases against other officers named in the complaint had been closed. In this manner, complainants were effectively denied their right to appeal decisions of the PIID to close complaint files. (See for example: PIID files 3234/94, 3332/94, 247/96 and 2179/97)

2. Investigative files compiled by the PIID in four disciplinary cases which were pending appeal "disappeared", and were later "discovered" in the prosecutions branch of the Judea-Samaria District Police!

APPEALS

PROSECUTION

 :

1. In seven cases the PIID recommended taking disciplinary action

PIID file 2938/94

 : Policeman attempted to run a person over with a vehicle

Charge

 : Defendant acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt

Disposition

PIID file 3234/94

 : Policeman hurled objects at prisoners

Charge

 : Defendant acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt

Disposition

 : Policeman kicked a 12 year-old girl in the stomach

PIID file 1933/95

Charge

 : Defendant acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt

Disposition

PIID file 2086/95

 : Policeman used violence against a young woman

Charge

 : Defendant convicted

Disposition

 : Reprimand

Sentence

PIID file 3416/95

 : Defendant beat a 13 year-old boy

Charge

 : Defendant convicted

Disposition

 : Reprimand

Sentence

PIID file 247/96

 : Violent and groundless arrest

Charge

 : Pending

Disposition

PIID file 2059/95

ChargeDisposition

: The police disciplinary prosecutor decided, against the recommendation of PIID, not to press charges. : Officer Yaakov Izun closed the door of a police cruiser on the finger of a 12 year-old boy, and intentionally delayed opening the door until the limb was bleeding and swollen.

 (Source #3)(Source #4) 

The reason given for the decision in last file is that:

 [who witnessed the event] against the officer's denial", since "the officer denied the charges and stated: 'Do you think a kid is gonna yell "ai! ai!" and I'm gonna delay helping him?, etc.'".

"The police disciplinary prosecutor believes that a disciplinary proceeding cannot be sustained on the basis of the subjective impression of the girls

Despite the recommendation of the PIID, despite the eye-witness testimony of two girls versus the lone testimony of the policeman, despite the medical report of the nurse who treated the wounded boy and despite the long record of serious complaints against office Izun which point to an extremely sadistic personality (he is the officer who cracked children's' heads together) -- the case was closed without any disciplinary action, and without even giving notice of this decision to the complainant.

2. In one case the PIID recommended pressing criminal charges against a police officer:

In PIID file 3332/94, officer Yaakov Izun was charged with cracking the heads of two children together, and other serious acts of violence against women and children. The file was transferred to the Jerusalem District Attorney's Office, where an indictment was prepared against Izun.

However, two years after the recommendation of the PIID to press criminal charges, and three years after the crime was committed, Jerusalem District Attorney Moshe Lador decided not to put Izun on trial.

The reasons given by Lador are "a lack of evidence" (this, despite the testimony of the young victims themselves and that of adults who witnessed the crime) and "a lack of public interest".  

In an appeal filed against this odious decision, the parents of the victims write:

"Is it possible that there is "no public interest" when a uniformed police officer smashes children's' heads into one another? Are there circumstances in which such an act is legitimate and permitted?

SUMMARY

The conclusion derived by both the Hebron police and their victims in the Jewish community from the sum of the information presented above, is that the violent and brutal behavior of the police is considered legitimate by senior officials in the State Attorney's Office (of which the PIID is a division). Police officers in Hebron have openly (and joyfully) told Jewish residents of the city that "the orders to treat the settlers with an iron hand come from above and police officers who do so are certain of getting full backing".

SOURCES

MAIN TEXT:

Source #1 - Article by Tovah Tzimuki in Yediot Aharanot, 23 June, 1995

Source #2 - Report by Israel Radio military affairs correspondent Carmela Menashe, January 13, 1995

Source #3 - Shamgar Commission Report pp. 190-191

Source #4 - Article by Tovah Tzimuki in Yediot Aharanot, 28 May, 1995

Source #5 - Testimony of officer Omri Ben Meir, May 6, 1996. Magistrates Court trial protocol

Source #6 - Trial protocol from September 22, 1997. M.R. 1945/97, Magistrates Court.

Source #7 - Decision of Judge Zilbertal in C.C. 2748/93 State of Israel v. Doron Avikazar

Source #8 - Trial protocol from C.C. (Juvenile) 127/93 State of Israel v. Yehuda Lebowitz

Source # 9 - Trial protocol from C.C. (Juvenile) 309/96 Stof Israel v. Yedidya Lebowitz  

Source #10 - C.C. 1153/95 State of Israel v. Meir Margalit; letter from investigations officer Avi Tarar of Judea-Samaria District Police

Source #11 - Letter to Ronen Cohen from Major Gabi Mizrachi of IDF Central Command

Source #12 - C.C. (Juvenile) 156/96. Trial protocol, 28 November, 1996

Source #13 - C.C. 666/95; "The Petting Zoo Incident": letter from Col. Ainat Ron, Chief Military Prosecutor

Source #14 - Decision of Judge Lachovitsky, C.C. 575/94

APPENDIX I

Source #1 - Letter from officer Avi Tarar to Malka Chaikin

Source #2 - Partial list of attacks by Arabs against Jews during the first half of 1997

Source #3 - "Law Enforcement Against Arabs in Hebron", letter from Adv. Dan Eldad of the Office of the Attorney-General.

Source #4 - Letter from officer Meir Gilboa, investigations officer Judea-Samaria District Police

Source #5 - Refusal of Police to Investigate Indecent Behavior

Source #6 - Reply of Minister Shahal to MK Ze'evi

Source #7 - Reply of Major Mizrachi of IDF Central Command to the Jewish Community Council

Source #8 - Article by Shlomo Chezna in Maariv, 5 January, 1998

Source #9 - C.C. 2167/95; Axing of girl - letter from officer Sammy Bedaan of the Judea-Samaria District Police

Source #10 - C.C. 1146/95; Stoning injury of skull sustained by girl -- Letter from officer Avi Tarar

Source #11 - Police handling of complaint of Chaya Shmuelevitz

Source #12 - Letter from Inspector Yitzhak Shilo, investigations officer, Hebron.

Source #13 - Letter from Col. Ainat Ron to Noam Arnon

Source #14 - Letter from Col. Ainat Ron to Orit Strook

Source #15 - C.C. 2120/96 regarding an indecent act (complaint of Adina Erlan)

Source #16 - Letter from MK Gideon Ezra to the Attorney-General

APPENDIX II

Source #1 - PIID file 2938/94 -- letter from Varda Shacham

Source #2 - Reply of Minister David Libai to query of MK Limor Livnat

Source #3 - PIID file 2059/95, closed by police -- letter from Adv. Dan Eldad of the Office of the Attorney-General

Source #4 - PIID file 3332/94 -- letter from Moshe Lador, Jerusalem District Attorney

Source #8 - Article by Shlomo Chezna in Maariv, 5 January, 1998

Source #9 - C.C. 2167/95; Axing of girl - letter from officer Sammy Bedaan of the Judea-Samaria District Police

Source #10 - C.C. 1146/95; Stoning injury of skull sustained by girl -- Letter from officer Avi Tarar

Source #11 - Police handling of complaint of Chaya Shmuelevitz

Source #12 - Letter from Inspector Yitzhak Shilo, investigations officer, Hebron.

Source #13 - Letter from Col. Ainat Ron to Noam Arnon

Source #14 - Letter from Col. Ainat Ron to Orit Strook

Source #15 - C.C. 2120/96 regarding an indecent act (complaint of Adina Erlan)

Source #16 - Letter from MK Gideon Ezra to the Attorney-General

APPENDIX II

Source #1 - PIID file 2938/94 -- letter from Varda Shacham

Source #2 - Reply of Minister David Libai to query of MK Limor Livnat

Source #3 - PIID file 2059/95, closed by police -- letter from Adv. Dan Eldad of the Office of the Attorney-General

Source #4 - PIID file 3332/94 -- letter from Moshe Lador, Jerusalem District Attorney