From theory, action.

stay-human:

23rd February, 2012

Two Palestinian teens who spent three months in jail on suspicion of throwing a firebomb were released this week because the border policemen who incriminated them turned out to have submitted false reports.

The bomb was allegedly thrown at a Jerusalem checkpoint on October 21. But according to Border Police records, there were no firebombings on October 21, and an officer who testified that he had witnessed the incident was not at the checkpoint that day, either.

The border policemen who gave the testimony were apparently “helped” by investigators, who supplied them with information from the teens’ confession to serve as the basis for their report.

Nevertheless, the charges against the teens have not yet been dropped.

The teens - M.S., 16, and M.R., 17, both from the Shoafat refugee camp in East Jerusalem - were arrested on November 22 by policemen who came to their home at 5 A.M. After several hours of interrogation, the two admitted to throwing a firebomb at border policemen manning the Shoafat checkpoint on Friday, October 21.

Three days after being arrested, they were indicted and jailed in Megiddo Prison until the end of their trial. The evidence against them looked solid: There was their confession, and also the testimony by border policemen who were at the checkpoint.

Ihab Ar’aida, a Border Police officer, filled out a report in January, two and a half months after the incident. “I was forward command officer on the second shift on October 21, 2011,” he wrote. “At about 21:30, I heard an explosive noise.”

Border policeman Henry Tzatzashvilli testified a month after the arrests that he had been at the checkpoint on that date and seen the firebomb explode, and was even hit by the flammable material inside it.

Questions arose even during the remand hearings. The teens’ attorneys - Radi Othman for M.S. and Yihye Mustafa of the Public Defender’s Office for M.R. - noted that the firebombing did not appear in any memorandum, activity report or operations log for that day. A search of the Border Police communications network’s recordings for October 21 also found nothing to indicate a firebombing had occurred that day.

Nevertheless, both the Jerusalem District Court and the Supreme Court rejected the teens’ appeal, so they remained in the lock-up.

The teens’ trial was meant to begin this Sunday, and in preparation, their attorneys asked last week to see the Border Police duty roster for the checkpoint on October 21. The roster showed that Ar’aida had not been at the checkpoint at the date and time the firebomb was allegedly thrown.

This finding convinced the prosecution that there was a problem with the case, and it agreed to release the teens without restrictions and postpone the trial for three weeks.

In a letter to Mustafa, Dotan Daniali, an assistant to the Jerusalem district attorney, claimed there had been a mix-up, and the incident described by the border policemen actually took place on October 26, not October 21. In the letter, Daniali admitted that the border policemen had been given the date by investigators so that their evidence would match the teens’ confession.

Othman said he has little doubt that the teens confessed falsely under pressure, and that the investigators “adopted” October 21 as the date because Friday is a day off in Palestinian schools. Othman also noted that there were contradictions between the two confessions.

“The [border policemen] simply wrote out reports based on what they were told to write,” he said. “People are convicted every day based on policemen’s reports. The problem is that while this time we caught it, there are plenty of times when we don’t know, and people go to prison as a result.”

He added that he hoped the prosecution would refer the case to the Justice Ministry’s department for investigating police misconduct “on its own initiative.”

The Israel Police referred Haaretz to the prosecution for a response. The Justice Ministry, on behalf of the Jerusalem District Attorney’s Office, said the prosecution is “conducting an investigation of the matter, and a decision on how to handle the case will be made only when it is completed.”

Ha’aretz

Outline: What The Occupation seeks.

Demands for the Government, University and Student Union:

• That neither students nor staff be persecuted for their political convictions or activity thereby.

We call on the Government, the following:

• First and foremost: to settle any ongoing disputes with public sector unions by making the concessions that the workers want.
• To take full responsibility for all disruption that may be caused by public sector industrial action on November 30th.
• To introduce universal, life-long access to education which shall be free at the point of use.
• To withdraw and oppose the higher education White Paper.
• For Liberal Democrat MPs to stand by their election pledges for free education.
• To oppose the abolition and restructuring of PGCE bursaries.
• To reintroduce the Education Maintenance Allowance as it was prior to its abolition.

We call on UWE Vice-Chancellor Steven West, to pledge the following:

• That UWE reverse its lecture workload model changes and settle any ongoing disputes with UCU, or other staff unions, by taking part in the negotiations and making the concessions that the union(s) wants.
• To publicly condemn the higher education White Paper, call for it to be withdrawn and condemn the increasing marketisation of education.
• To guarantee no course closures.
• To reinstate languages courses.
• To guarantee no job cuts with no adverse changes to academic and non-academic staff terms and conditions.
• To recognise an atmosphere of fear amongst staff in tandem with “voluntary redundancies” constitutes job cuts.
• To provide bursaries for all international, home and EU students who need them - not fee waivers.
• To guarantee no cuts to library, student support, and learning resources which includes disability services.
• To guarantee no cuts to access schemes or foundation courses.
• No reprimands for staff who refuse to cross picket lines.
• No reprimands for students who refuse to cross picket lines or are involved in the occupation. Not only ensures that no aggression, interference or disturbance will take place against the occupation, but also takes measures to facilitate our work when appropriate.
• Support for the UCU decision against making lecturers responsible for policing foreign student visas.
• To have representation in the governors’ forum meeting, of at least one person chosen by the occupation.
• Demand Steven West takes full responsibility for disruption caused by past industrial action in the ongoing dispute between UWE and UCU and holds the government responsible for any disruption caused by the strike on November 30th.
• Responds to all (individual and collective) requests for information and provide access to all documents related to the management of our university.

We leave an open invitation for Steven West, V-C, to come and meet with the occupation.


We call on the S.U., to pledge the following:

• Total pro-active support for the November 30th Strike, respective of the mandate through AGM, in media (such as the SU website) and on campuses.
• To respect the mandate from last, and this, years’ AGM to visually support the strikes and occupation with banners, flags, etc.
• To maintain a higher degree of independence from non-elected and non-student officials and staff within the university and student union. (See Paddy’s AGM motion, which was blocked from the floor)
• To become more transparent and open to the student body.
• To advertise and attend a general assembly in order that students are able to voice their concerns with the S.U.
• To re-instate Matt Hollinshead as Chair of Meetings and allow his access to SU spaces, after his unfair, and politically motivated suspension.
• To actively encourage UWESU employees to join trade unions and not to discriminate against trade union members.
• To respond to these demands within 24 hours.