Legality suggests the presence of a democratic system, an elected representative body and laws agreed amongst elected officials who represent the people of the area.The legal system placed upon occupied land by Israel is not democratic nor is it legal.”The law in these parts” highlights the loopholes of the supposed legal system. Ra’naan Alexandrowicz structures the film effectively running a debate on justice by using different questions which i will highlight throughout this review, critically looking at the effectiveness of each and the extent to which each helps answer the justice question put forth.
Did international law support the Israeli occupation?
Article 42, Under Orders And Proclamations,confirms that international law did support Israeli’s occupation, it says “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army” The film supports this stand with confirmation from the Judges. They reiterate that the occupied regions were subject to their rule once they fell under them.Legality however does not imply justice. One of the judges was quoted saying “order and justice does not go hand in hand”
Does International law apply to occupied citizens?
A twist is brought up with another quote, “International law was not written in order to protect terrorists and criminals” referring to the palestinian infiltrators caught by Israeli officials under case 2046. Here the question of who international law applies to is brought up. It appears throughout the film that the Israeli’s used the Geneva Convention amongst other international laws, to justify their occupation and their later treatment of the palestinians in the occupied regions. International law did not extend to the palestinian infiltrators in case 2046 despite Judge Abulafia writing that “The Geneva Convention grants special status to lawful combatants which included members of a liberation organization” The film effectively highlights the biased interpretation of international law carried out by those who formulated the legal system that governed the occupied areas.
Who could interpret international law?
Who was protected by international law?
Contention in case 2046 was in the definition of what fits as a “liberation organization” For the palestinians those fighting against the Israel occupation were seen as heroes and pro liberation hence the formation of Fatah and other political groups aiming to wrest Palestine from Israeli control. Interpretation of such a group however was subject to the viewer and in the courts, the judge. Palestinians viewed these groups as their ticket to freedom while the US and Israel viewed them as terrorist groups. In light of the argument on international law and whom it could be extended to the film clearly shows that palestinians had very little luck when it came to standing under the protection of international law.
Is it right to have court proceedings in Hebrew in a predominantly Arab area?
How just is a court system run by IDF officials in a Palestinian region under occupation?
Justice under the occupied regions was at the mercy of “the security regulations order” who established military courts in the area.Cases were heard by three IDF one of whom had to have studied law and the prosecutor was anyone appointed by the military commander.Legal authority of the area was not only emphasized by domination of the ruling officials in the courts, it was emphasized also by the integration of the hebrew language into the courts in an area that was predominantly Arab. Having a soldier present to translate the proceedings into Arabic was not enough to overshadow the already established Jewish power in the courts.Palestinian helplessness against the established legal system is highlighted as they were helpless even in the proceedings due to the language barrier presented to them.
Could justice really be extended to Israel’s enemies?
The Israeli supreme court is noted to have been the first to have the problem of not only issuing justice to its citizens but also to citizens Israel was holding under occupation.
The film successfully explores the question above melancholically answering it through a reflection of cases passed in the past.
Case No 4 from 1969 is key in the film’s analysis of justice.Case No 4 is the first proceeding that contended with the legitimacy of Palestinian struggle against Israel.It was a case of Military Prosecutor vs Mahmoud Qassem & eight others who were prosecuted for being associated with Fatah and violent activities.Judge Abulafa writes “The Geneva convention indeed grants special status to lawful combatants which include members of liberation organization” The Judge being interviewed however responded saying “International law was not written in order to protect terrorists and criminals”This response answers the earlier question making it clear that Israel at no point considered the Palestinians worthy of being considered under international law, to them Palestinians simply did not fit under the definition of “lawful combatants” they were plainly terrorists.And to further answer the question above, they were their enemies.
Another case is that of a farmer, Elon Moreh who appealed to the Israeli Supreme court about his land which was taken away during Israeli settlement.He argued that there was no security need to seize his land.The supreme court got back to him months later saying that international law did permit temporary seizure of private land for security purposes. Elon Moreh however saw that the seizure was not temporary nor was it for security purposes, but it was for the creation of an Israeli settlement.Laws such as “Dead Land” law followed by the Israeli’s were not just. This law on land dates back to the Ottoman and Jordanian Empire reiterating that any “land that is being cultivated and that is far from any village should be seized by the empire in control”, the empire in control at that time in the area was Israel.It was hard for justice to be extended to Israel’s enemies. Alexander Ramati the retired lieutenant colonel and legal advisor of the West Bank Military command from 1973-1979 justifies the “dead land law” even though there were arguments that stated that international law did not permit Israel to use the land they claimed in the way that they did.The legal system created an air where it was Israel’s word against anyone who would challenge them and those who were in charge of the legal aspect of the war would look into any legal document to justify their actions. The above case shows us that Israel did not only look to international law to justify their actions, they looked to many other documents, and they disregarded international law whenever it did not serve them as they wished.
Did the rulings of the supreme court influence the existence of half a million Israeli settlers in occupied land?
Has the supreme court through its rulings protected Israeli settlers?
The film does a good job in showing us Israel’s stand on this matter and that is that the settlement of Israeli’s is purely political and not at all influenced by the supreme court rulings. Remembering the law put forth by the retired lieutenant colonel and legal advisor of the West Bank Military command Alexander Ramati we can refute the above claim, as the film clearly shows that Ramati and other officials flew over palestinian land looking for “dead land” which they could seize. Effectively Alexandrowicz shows loopholes in the legal system in regards to the settlement of the Israeli settlers.He asks Justice Shamgar why Israel settled its citizens in occupied land despite International law prohibiting it, and the justice was unable to answer. This moment in the film is powerful as it emphasized the fact that Israel was still unable to answer some questions despite having very qualified legal officials advising it.
Could justice really prevail in a setting where the same power quelling the uprising was expected to protect the uprisers?
During the intifada it is clear that the legal officials suffered enormous strain. They had to advise the army on how to act while protecting the residents who rose up against the occupation.The officials confess that order is what Israel was looking for at the beginning of the Intifada, accounts of men being jailed for 14months because of stone throwing is evidence that justice was not supported at this time.Order was what was the priority of the officials.The fact that the law under the occupied areas allowed arrest without trial for some cases continues to support the fact that justice was not at all the main priority during the intifada but order was. An interview with one of the officials revealed that the legal system could be changed by an administrator without debate or a vote. The official proclaimed that the intifada was a crucial time and as such crucial measures were to be taken.It is clear that justice did not prevail as there appeared to be an increase in arrests caused by the changes that were made to the system.
The Israeli occupation in this film is a sad tale told through the mouths of the oppressors, the people who made the laws of an area their country took over.Brilliantly Ra’naan Alexandrowicz structures the film effectively having Israeli Judges unfold,expose and highlight the unjust legal system operated in the occupied regions through a debate that they end up loosing. Success is achieved through a question and answer set up which mimics law courts and appears as a hearing.The format of the film places the legal officials on the spot for the first time, in the same way palestinians had been placed for decades.Not only does Ra’naan Alexandrowiczmake put them on the spot, he also makes them experience interrogation as the Palestinians had, roles are switched and the judges are subject to Ra’naan Alexandrowicz’s interpretation of what they say, in the same way the Palestinian defendants were at their mercy.Critics may speculate that the judges primitively prepared themselves however hesitant answers and shock seen in some judges allows for the conclusion of a number of questions raised throughout the film thus achieving the purpose this film set out to in the first place, that is to investigate whether justice really prevailed under the legal system in the occupied areas. It appears also that Ra’naan Alexandrowicz opened a few of the judges eyes through his questions and clips of previous cases.For the first time some Judges saw the effect of their legal system from another perspective bringing in an interesting twist, which draws sympathy from the viewer. Sympathy is raised as viewers notice effects of Israeli nationalism on the Judges raising the question did nationalism blind them?”.Analysis of Israeli nationalism and its effect on the judges and their decision is brought up in this film, moving the film from being one sided as the viewer is able to sympathize with the position these judges must have been in.Themes that have through the years been brought up with the Israel-Palestinian crisis come up.
Ideally palestinians would like this film to plainly show their struggle while Israel also would have liked the same. The crisis has brought up an air of defence on both sides each justifying their views, their stance and their reasons for acting the way they do. Some of the judge’s realization of the injustices of the legal system is evidence of the fact that many of these Judges were not used to viewing issues, debates and cases from any other view, especially that of the palestinians.
Israel has been quoted stating that it is the only democracy in the Middle East.Case 2058 from 2011 “Military prosecutor vs Bassem Tamimi” however challenges such claims.The melancholic closure of the film beautifully wraps up the debate it raises on justice. The final monologue reminds us of what a true democracy is supposed to be while highlighting the ways in which Israel’s actions do not fall under democratic lines. Bassem Tamimi’s personal account heightens the viewers sympathy, not only towards himself but towards the entire palestinian population for he represents the plight of every person in the occupied region.
VIDEO LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abqLHDLIJAY