Kassem and the Palestinian Judiciary

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

18 October 2010

As is known, two cases have been filed against me on charges of defamation and libel: one by an officer of Palestinian intelligence, the other by an officer of Preventive Security. Here I present a few glimpses into the competence of the Palestinian prosecution and the Palestinian judiciary:

The first complainant appeared on 21 April 2009, and accused me of tarnishing his image through the media and through printed bulletins. I asked him whether he could name a single media program in which I had mentioned his name; he answered no. I asked him whether he had read a bulletin in which his name was mentioned; he answered no. I told the judge my questions were finished. I expected the judge to close the case on the spot, but instead the judge asked the complainant whether he had witnesses, and he answered that he had dozens. The judge asked him to name a single one, and he could not. Even so, the case did not end. The assistant prosecutor requested that a witness be summoned — the very policeman I had gone to complain to, who instead had me placed in the lockup. That witness has still not appeared, despite our having waited for him across several sessions.

Even so, the case remains before the court. They say there are judicial procedures that must simply run their course, and I say that evidence matters more than procedure, and that the length of proceedings is no expression of any genuine desire to see justice done. In any case, a ruling on this case is expected on 24 October 2010.

The second complainant appeared on 23 April 2009, while I was being held with the criminal detainees. This case concerns a telephone appearance on Al-Aqsa Television, watched by thousands of people. The complainant said I never mentioned his name in the program, but claimed that I had said, in his account, that whoever shot Sheikh Hamed al-Beitawi was an agent of Israel — on the assumption that he himself was the one who had shot Sheikh al-Beitawi. He requested a witness. That witness did not appear until 28 April 2010 — more than a year later. Who benefits from this kind of attrition?

At last a witness came forward for the complainant, and something rather comic happened:

On 21 April 2009, the judge asked the complainant: was your name mentioned in the television interview? The complainant answered no. I repeated the question to him myself, and he again answered no. On 28 April 2010, the defense attorney asked the witness, several times: was the complainant’s name mentioned in the television interview? He talked circles around the question without answering it, and amid the assistant prosecutor’s objections to the question being repeated, the judge asked the defense attorney to stop, and took up the question himself: was the complainant’s name mentioned in the interview? Again, circles around the question. The judge repeated the question, and the witness finally answered: yes, his name was mentioned, and he was called an agent of the Mossad. The witness had, of course, sworn his oath on the Qur’an. He was unable to specify a date, even though he did recall some of what had been said in the interview about leaders inciting certain young men in ways that lead to internal conflict.

What is amusing is that the witness kept repeating the word “Mossad,” which betrays his ignorance of the matter. If I had wanted to accuse someone, I would have said he was an agent of Israeli intelligence, or of the Shin Bet — I would never have said Mossad, since the Mossad is Israel’s foreign intelligence service.

Here I republish the exact, word-for-word text of the television interview:

The presenter asked: How can these attacks in the occupied West Bank, which culminated in the assassination attempt against MP Hamed al-Beitawi, be understood in light of the situation you’re describing?

My answer: This is an attempt to raise tensions, and perhaps you’ve read what Avi Dichter wrote or said in recent days. We know him well, of course, and he’s brought nothing new to the table. He said that there are people among the Palestinian leadership who cooperate with us [Israel], with the aim of keeping division and discord alive on the Palestinian scene, keeping internal fighting alive. And of course, this infighting is not unconnected to the pattern of behavior of Palestinian leaderships who are constantly carrying out difficult acts, assaults, violations of honor, and violations of property, in order to provoke the other side’s reaction. And every time that reaction is provoked, tension on the Palestinian scene rises further, the rift widens further, and we end up busying ourselves fighting one another. What happened to our brother Sheikh Hamed al-Beitawi does not fall outside this pattern. I heard the statement claiming this was an individual act. No — there’s no such thing as an individual act; even if it were carried out by one individual, it would still have been preceded by major, foolish incitement driving these acts. And of course, before that, you know they burned my car too. Why do these attacks keep happening, when everyone keeps saying, “by God, we’ve restored security to Nablus,” and so on? No, they haven’t done that — they’ve simply called for calm, while keeping those who attack people (here a word is unclear due to the presenter clearing his throat) tucked away in some corner, ready to be let loose whenever they’re needed or whenever the situation calls for it. And of course, what situation would that be? Certainly not the Palestinian situation — rather, perhaps there are interests involved, certainly interests belonging to Israel and the United States. And so these acts are nothing but a continuation of the chain of corruption we have lived through for years. End of answer.

The recording (audio and video) is available.

The Witnesses

My turn came to present my own witnesses, and it seems the judge had not yet ruled on the written document I had submitted to him, nor on the recording (audio and video) I had submitted on compact disc.

Two witnesses appeared on 7 July 2010, but the judge heard only one of them, for lack of time. He had earlier told me to bring a single witness, but I chose to bring two as a precaution. The court is scheduled to hear a second witness on 24 October 2010, out of five whose names the defense attorney submitted to the judge. I should note that I am capable of bringing a thousand witnesses if needed.

The thing that still raises a great question mark in my mind is the role of the public prosecution. Why does the public prosecution take up two losing cases of this kind? Why does it not simply let the complainant present his own evidence? What drives the prosecution to take up a complainant’s case that includes no evidence at all, while failing to take up the defense of the party that actually holds the evidence? Is someone interfering in the judiciary and the prosecution, particularly from the security apparatuses? Is it justice for the prosecution to bow to pressure from security apparatuses? And did the prosecution spare the security apparatuses the trouble of arresting me politically, by arresting me instead as a common criminal, in a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation? This is a matter I intend to raise forcefully, both on the Palestinian and the European scene.

I should note here as well that the prosecution held me for three days among the civil prisoners. And here I declare before the world that the Palestinian police placed handcuffs on my wrists. For comparison: I recall that a Zionist officer once shouted at one of his own soldiers when the soldier tried to shackle my hands, at the time of my arrest in 1990, saying: don’t do that. A Palestinian policeman, quite simply, feels no such hesitation.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “عبد الستار قاسم والقضاء الفلسطيني” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.