Israel’s Supreme Court convicted two minors Thursday who took part in anti-expulsion protests prior to the implementation of the Disengagement Plan and the destruction of Jewish towns in Gaza and northern Samaria.
The two had taken part in the blocking of the Geha Highway (Highway 4) on August 16th, 2005 – on the eve of the forced eviction and after Gaza had already been declared closed to Jews. The two used mattresses to block traffic, which they set on fire.
The Jerusalem District Court ruled earlier that the two were guilty, but not deserving of punishment beyond court-imposed classes on democracy. The State Prosecution appealed the decision, seeking much harsher punishment. The state argued that a large demographic views road blockings as a legitimate form of protest and must be corrected.
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision Thursday, convicting the two teens of endangerment of life on a traffic thoroughfare and instructing the lower court to hand down a harsher sentence.
Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote in his verdict: “We are aware of the basic norms of the defendants and their outstanding contribution on behalf of the public, as well as their expressions of remorse and introspection. But the previous verdict of acquittal was a moderate punishment. Therefore, we decided that in order to fulfill the intent of the lawmaker and in order to deter the public, we are convicting them of this crime…In this regard, the driving ideology heightens the necessity of deterring the public [from engaging in civil disobedience], and there is no need to be verbose in this regard.”
Rubinstein went on to criticize the “use of minors” in the struggle against the Disengagement and expressed his hope that the conviction would be a deterrent to others who may seek to wage such a struggle again in the future. “It is not a simple decision in that before us we have people who we believe and hope will perform beneficial service in the IDF and become good citizens, while before us we also have the dictate of the lawmaker – and especially when dealing with minors, with an emphasis on the individual. But in this case, we tend to lean toward conviction specifically because these dangerous illegal action were part of a political and ideological struggle – and this must be uprooted. Thus it is upon the Supreme Court to contribute to that end.”
Rubinstein said the verdict was aimed most of all at the “leaders” of the anti-expulsion camp and should not prevent the young people from serving in elite IDF units.
The Deputy Head of the Israel Bar Association, Attorney Yariv Levine spoke with Arutz-7 about the ramifications of the convictions. “We are speaking about a very serious verdict that once again positions the Supreme Court on the fringes of Israeli society, further intensifying the public’s sweeping lack of faith in the justice system.”
Levine added that it is “demonstrated again and again that when it comes to the human rights of supporters of the settlement project, the Supreme Court abstains from fulfilling its duties.”
The two had taken part in the blocking of the Geha Highway (Highway 4) on August 16th, 2005 – on the eve of the forced eviction and after Gaza had already been declared closed to Jews. The two used mattresses to block traffic, which they set on fire.
The Jerusalem District Court ruled earlier that the two were guilty, but not deserving of punishment beyond court-imposed classes on democracy. The State Prosecution appealed the decision, seeking much harsher punishment. The state argued that a large demographic views road blockings as a legitimate form of protest and must be corrected.
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision Thursday, convicting the two teens of endangerment of life on a traffic thoroughfare and instructing the lower court to hand down a harsher sentence.
Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote in his verdict: “We are aware of the basic norms of the defendants and their outstanding contribution on behalf of the public, as well as their expressions of remorse and introspection. But the previous verdict of acquittal was a moderate punishment. Therefore, we decided that in order to fulfill the intent of the lawmaker and in order to deter the public, we are convicting them of this crime…In this regard, the driving ideology heightens the necessity of deterring the public [from engaging in civil disobedience], and there is no need to be verbose in this regard.”
Rubinstein went on to criticize the “use of minors” in the struggle against the Disengagement and expressed his hope that the conviction would be a deterrent to others who may seek to wage such a struggle again in the future. “It is not a simple decision in that before us we have people who we believe and hope will perform beneficial service in the IDF and become good citizens, while before us we also have the dictate of the lawmaker – and especially when dealing with minors, with an emphasis on the individual. But in this case, we tend to lean toward conviction specifically because these dangerous illegal action were part of a political and ideological struggle – and this must be uprooted. Thus it is upon the Supreme Court to contribute to that end.”
Rubinstein said the verdict was aimed most of all at the “leaders” of the anti-expulsion camp and should not prevent the young people from serving in elite IDF units.
The Deputy Head of the Israel Bar Association, Attorney Yariv Levine spoke with Arutz-7 about the ramifications of the convictions. “We are speaking about a very serious verdict that once again positions the Supreme Court on the fringes of Israeli society, further intensifying the public’s sweeping lack of faith in the justice system.”
Levine added that it is “demonstrated again and again that when it comes to the human rights of supporters of the settlement project, the Supreme Court abstains from fulfilling its duties.”