Israeli forces break Palestinian boy’s jaw during arrest

Mohammad's hands and feet shackled

Mohammad’s hands and feet shackled

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

Israeli forces break Palestinian boy’s jaw during arrest

Ramallah, December 8, 2020—Israeli authorities transferred a 16-year-old Palestinian boy on Thursday directly to an Israeli prison from the hospital where he was recovering from surgery the day before for injuries sustained during his arrest.

Mohammad Muneer Mohammad Moqbel, 16, was detained by Israeli forces around 9 a.m. on November 29 from Arroub refugee camp, located north of the occupied West Bank city of Hebron. Moqbel sustained a broken jaw when an Israeli soldier struck him in the face with a rifle stock after he was already in Israeli custody, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International – Palestine.

Mohammad had left home for school that morning but arrived to find his school closed. He returned home and later went out to the store, where he encountered Israeli forces firing tear gas and stun grenades in the camp. Mohammad sought shelter in a nearby house. An Israeli soldier followed him into the house and detained him, according to information collected by DCIP.

Mohammad told DCIP that an Israeli soldier struck him in the face with a rifle stock and then he was physically assaulted by at least three other Israeli soldiers for about 10 minutes.

“They slapped me and kicked me all over my body,” Mohammad told DCIP. “I had bruises on my back, knees, and shoulders. My mouth, jaw, and chin were bleeding. They also broke two of my teeth.”

“Israeli soldiers frequently use excessive force without justification when detaining Palestinian children,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, Accountability Program director at DCIP. “Israeli forces know that systemic impunity will allow them to continue to subject unnecessary violence against Palestinian children without ever being held accountable.”

Since 1967, Israel has operated two separate legal systems in the same territory. In the occupied West Bank, Israeli settlers are subject to the civilian and criminal legal system whereas Palestinians live under military law.

Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections. Israel prosecutes between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in military courts each year.

Israeli forces placed Mohammad in the back of a military vehicle on the metal floor alongside three other Palestinian children detained during the raid. They were transferred to Karmei Tzur, an illegal Israeli settlement two miles south of Arroub camp. During the transfer, Israeli soldiers subjected Mohammad and the other children to physical violence and insults, according to information collected by DCIP.

Mohammad was detained, bound and blindfolded, on the ground for two hours at Karmei Tzur, and then transferred to Israel’s Etzion interrogation and detention center.

Despite a bloodied face and injured jaw, he was not provided with any medical treatment and was subject to two interrogation sessions without the presence of a family member or a lawyer. Israeli interrogators accused him of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli forces.

Israeli military law provides no right to legal counsel during interrogation, and Israeli military court judges seldom exclude confessions obtained by coercion or torture.

After his second interrogation session ended around 6 p.m., Israeli forces detained Mohammad outside, bound and blindfolded, for close to six hours. He was brought indoors around midnight.

Israeli forces transferred Mohammad to Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital in Jerusalem around 3 a.m. on November 30. Doctors examined and X-rayed his jaw and confirmed it was broken. Doctors operated on Mohammad on December 2 inserting four screws and platinum to reconnect his jaw and broken teeth.

Mohammad’s detention was extended for a period of six days on December 1 by a military judge at Israel’s Ofer Military Court so an indictment could be filed against him, according to Iyad Misk, a DCIP lawyer providing legal representation to Mohammad. Mohammad was subsequently charged by a military prosecutor with throwing stones and Molotov cocktails.

Israeli forces shackled Mohammad’s hands and feet while he was recovering in bed and placed his hospital room under guard.

On December 3, Mohammad was transferred to Israel’s Megiddo prison located inside Israel, north of the occupied West Bank. While a bail request was granted on December 6, he remains in pretrial detention at Megiddo prison as the Israeli military prosecutor has appealed the decision. The next hearing before Israel’s Military Court of Appeals is scheduled for December 10.

Physical violence and ill-treatment of Palestinian child detainees is widespread and institutionalized in the Israeli military detention system, according to evidence collected by DCIP.

International law and norms require law enforcement officers to use reasonable and proportional force to carry out a lawful arrest. International juvenile justice standards, which Israel has an obligation to implement after ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, include an absolute prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

In October, Amer Abdel-Rahim Snobar, 16, was beaten and killed by Israeli soldiers near the occupied West Bank village of Turmus’ayya. An autopsy found that he likely died from asphyxiation as a result of strangulation, according to information collected by DCIP.

The United Nations Committee against Torture, an independent body that monitors the implementation of the U.N. Convention against Torture, has concluded that the use of excessive force by law enforcement or military personnel may amount to torture and ill-treatment. When determining if certain acts constitute torture, the child’s age must be taken into account.

This article first appeared on the Defense for Children International – Palestine website.

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

Zionism, anti-Semitism and Ken Livingstone

Flag of Palestine

Flag of Palestine

Below is the content of a leaflet distributed by the Liverpool Friends of Palestine at the May Day march and rally in Liverpool on May 1st, 2017.

Although in no way a supporter of the British Labour Party some of their membership might, at times, make declarations which should be supported. Although not very well expressed and defended even less well his attack on the crimes of Zionism should be supported.

Increasingly Zionism is attempting to conflate attacks on the Settler State of Israel as an attack upon all Jewish people. Unfortunately the spreading climate of racism increases peoples’ fears and decreases their ability to see things for what they are.  

When it comes to Zionism and Israel it is the people of Palestine who suffer yet again. The ‘acceptance’ of the situation of the Palestinian people; the way they have been treated like pawns in an international game of power politics; the constant harassment, murderous military attacks and the imprisonment of its population by soldiers of the Israeli Settler State; the betrayals they have had to endure; and the endless empty promises to resolve the theft of their land is a crime for which those in the so-called ‘developed’ countries should hang their heads in shame for allowing to exist for almost a century.  

Without the freedom of the Palestinian people there will be no true freedom for the oppressed and exploited of the world.     

Zionism, anti-Semitism and Ken Livingstone

Liverpool Friends of Palestine

Ken Livingstone

Ken Livingstone

Early in April Ken Livingstone was suspended for a further 12 months by the Labour Party National Compliance Committee. He was originally charged with anti-Semitism and ‘holocaust revision’, either of which would have been reason to expel him if true. Neither accusation would stand up in a court of law, so it was no surprise when the Compliance Committee settled on “conduct prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Labour Party”, citing “deeply offensive” statements on Nazi Germany.

Zionist organisations keen to conceal the actual history of Nazi-Zionist collaboration, and anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, predictably condemned the decision not to expel Livingstone. Unfortunately, to their shame, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell also attacked him, and with Len McCluskey’s support the case was referred back to Labour’s National Executive Committee. But upholding freedom of expression, and solidarity with Palestine, means defending the right to speak truthfully about history, even if it hurts.

Why all this uproar about one man, whose strong record of fighting racism for decades is unquestionable?

Historical accuracy

It is clear what Ken Livingstone did not say. He did not say that Hitler was a Zionist, nor that Zionism is equivalent to Nazism nor that the German Zionists, a small minority of German Jews in 1933 when Hitler took power, were complicit in the Holocaust.

He did say that Zionist organisations collaborated with the Nazi regime which promoted them in opposition to the vast majority of German Jews who regarded themselves first and foremost as German citizens, not Jews. They wished to integrate into German society. The aim of Zionist Jewish organisations, on the other hand, was to persuade Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

Collaboration

The Nazi regime aimed to make Germany a Jew-free country. New laws gradually excluded German Jews from cultural, social, political and economic life. Some were supported by the Zionist organisations, as contributing to their aim.

On September 17th 1935, the paper of the German Zionist Federation welcomed the Nuremburg Laws which removed German citizenship from Jews and effectively made them stateless. These laws were opposed by the vast majority of German Jews.

The regime promoted emigration from Germany and

I saw Zionist organisations as part of the process. This conclusion is detailed by such eminent Zionist historians as Lucy Dawidowicz (War Against the Jews), David Cesarani (Final Solution and The Fate of the Jews 1933 -1949) and Francis Nicosia.

“Throughout the 1930s … there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews and Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine.”

From Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany by Francis Nicosia, Professor of History and Raul Hilberg Distinguished Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Vermont.

The Transfer (Ha’ avara) Agreement

The most notorious collaboration was the Ha’avara Agreement, originally proposed by a Jewish businessman in Palestine, and embraced by the Nazis as a means to puncture the world-wide campaign for a boycott of Hitler’s Germany. The Agreement was signed in August 1933 by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank, and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

Nazi coin minted to commemorate the Ha'avara Agreement

Nazi coin minted to commemorate the Ha’avara Agreement

The owner of a Tel Aviv citrus export firm, Sam Cohen, had proposed that Zionist émigrés avoid tax on capital leaving Germany, by purchasing goods in Germany to be sold in Palestine. The German Consul in Jerusalem wrote “In this way it might be possible to wage a successful campaign against the Jewish boycott of Germany … It is important to break the boycott first and foremost in Palestine, and the effect will inevitably be felt on the main front, in the United States.”

The Nazis first agreed for lm Reichmarks to be shipped to Palestine as farm machinery. The Jewish National Fund then got Cohen to arrange for frozen JNF monies to be released for transfer. “The bait for the Nazis was that the cash was needed to buy land for the Jews whom Hitler would be pushing out. Cohen also assured that he would operate behind the scenes at a forthcoming Jewish conference in London to weaken or defeat any boycott resolution.”

In early May 1933, Chaim Arlosoroff, the Political Secretary of the Jewish Agency, came to a preliminary understanding to extend Cohen’s arrangement. He returned to Tel Aviv and was assassinated because of his dealings with the Nazis. The Agreement was then signed, and caused an uproar when it emerged.

What’s behind the attack on Livingstone?

We reject the view that Ken Livingstone is anti-Semitic. His statements on collaboration of German Zionists with the Nazi regime are broadly accurate.

He has a long history of supporting the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice, as does Jeremy Corbyn who has faced continuing opposition from Zionists within and without the Labour Party who want to silence the voices of Palestinians and their supporters. Corbyn’s victory on an anti-austerity, socialist platform also angered right-wing Labour members, MPs and the media.

Research by the Media Reform Coalition concludes that “most newspapers [had been] systematically vilifying the leader of the biggest opposition party, assassinating his character, ridiculing his personality and de-legitimising his ideas and politics.” After his election as leader this alliance of Zionists and neo-liberals intensified their opposition, but their coup attempts failed to remove Corbyn.

False accusations of anti-Semitism

False accusations of anti-Semitism were then deployed. The independent inquiry by Shami Chakrabarti, which found that “The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism”, had no effect. The false accusations by supporters of Apartheid Israel continued, with some newspapers, in particular the ‘liberal’ Guardian acting as cheerleaders. In this context we defend Ken Livingstone and condemn Zionists and their supporters for personal abuse and blatant political misrepresentations. Ken Livingstone was vilified for this statement:

“When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

This statement is not anti-Semitic. Yes, it should have said 1933 and Palestine. But the Nazis, under Hitler’s absolute authority, did support the Zionist emigration policy and did explicitly favour German Zionist organisations.

Criticism of Israel and of its founding ideology, Zionism, has been misrepresented as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism is a form of racist bigotry directed at Jews because they are Jews. By contrast, anti-Zionism opposes the political ideology which underpins the Israeli state. More than 40% of British Jews do not identify as Zionist.

These escalating allegations of antisemitism are a response to the growing success of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in holding Israel to account for its crimes against the Palestinian people. Allegations of antisemitism have been used increasingly to discredit Israel’s critics. The intention is to suppress criticism of Israel and undermine freedom of speech for Palestinians and their supporters.

Outrageous

Accusing Ken Livingstone of “deeply offensive” statements which are historically correct is outrageous. Discussing the actual history will offend some who see it as undermining the legitimacy of the Zionist project of creating a Jewish state based on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In another era the white leaders and supporters of Apartheid South Africa were ‘offended’ by criticism of apartheid.

The answer is simple. Stop supporting Apartheid Israel and the Zionist philosophy which underpins it.

Liverpool Friends of Palestine

c/o News from Nowhere,

96 Bold St, Ll 4HY

see also freespeechonisrael.org.uk