The Story of the Criminal Arrest

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

I have been subjected to repeated assaults by the Palestinian Authority over the course of years. These assaults began in 1995 with my being shot and hit by four bullets, and culminated in my criminal arrest on a charge of harming people’s reputations.

Most recently, the Palestinian Authority proceeded to arrest me on 28 July 2008. I was threatened by phone by a person who identified himself as Mahdi Marqa on 30 December 2008, and my car was set on fire on 23 January 2009.

Al-Aqsa satellite channel interviewed me on 20 April 2009 at four-thirty, and the interview revolved around three subjects: internal Palestinian dialogue, the security chaos, and Egypt’s role in the region. On the security chaos, I said that it was one of the main causes of the internal fighting, a phenomenon that had spread hatred and enmity among the ranks of the Palestinian people. When the presenter asked me about the shooting of Sheikh Hamed al-Bitawi, I told him that such acts do not serve the Palestinian people, but rather serve Israel and America. Here is the literal text of what I said: “This is an attempt to raise tensions, and perhaps you have read what Avi Dichter wrote, or said, in recent days. We certainly know him, and he has not brought anything new. He said there are Palestinian leaders who cooperate with us with the aim of keeping a rift and dispute alive in the Palestinian arena, so that the internal fighting continues. Of course, the internal fighting has never strayed far from the conduct of Palestinian leaderships that constantly carry 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 increases in the Palestinian arena, the rift widens, and we remain preoccupied with fighting one another. What happened to brother Sheikh Hamed al-Bitawi does not fall outside this framework. I heard the statement saying this was an individual act. No, there is no such thing as an individual act — even if it were individual, it would have been preceded by great and foolish incitement to carry out such acts. And of course, before that, as you know, they also burned my car. Why these assaults, when they all say, ‘By God, we have restored security to Nablus,’ and so on? No, they haven’t done that. They have called for calm and left those who assault people [an unclear word here, due to the presenter clearing his throat] in a particular corner, to be released if they are forced to, or if they find that circumstances require it. Of course, what circumstance would require that? Certainly not the Palestinian circumstance, but perhaps there are interests — certainly there are interests for Israel and the United States of America. And so these acts are no different from the chain of corruption we have lived through over the years.”

No sooner had I finished the call than my mobile phone began ringing, with insults pouring in on me from people who identified themselves — and I handed their names over to the police. I called the police, and the officer instructed me to come to the station to file a report.

About an hour and a half later, a Preventive Security vehicle came to the house, and I was handed a summons to appear before Preventive Security the following day, i.e. 21 April 2009. I felt that something was being cooked up, so I decided to go to the police immediately. I spoke verbally with the investigating officer, but he jumped up from the desk when I told him that Preventive Security had summoned me. I overheard part of a conversation taking place outside, and it was clear that he was speaking with an official in the Nablus governorate and a security agency. The officer came back and told me there was a complaint against me from a person named Nu’man Amer — a name whose owner I do not know, nor do I know what the complaint was about. The officer said I had harmed his reputation by describing him as a collaborator with Israel. The officer took my statement, the gist of which was that I did not know the person and had not spoken about the al-Bitawi incident specifically, but had only referred to it within a general context. The result was that I found myself detained in the holding cell.

A little later, the officer came back and summoned me again, saying there was another complaint against me from a person named Mahdi Marqa, over harming his reputation by my saying that he was the one who had burned my car.

The officer took my statement and returned me to the holding cell. Of course, the officer did not present any evidence against me.

The judge asked him whether he had anything else he wished to say, and he said he had witnesses, but he could not give the judge any name. However, the prosecution, represented by Roland Hamdeh, requested an opportunity to bring witnesses. I objected to the prosecution’s request because I sensed some bad faith. But the judge granted the prosecution’s request, and agreed to release me on bail on condition that I attend the court session on 14 May 2009.

But I did not return home, and I was held for two days awaiting trial on the second complaint. They detained me together with detainees held on murder charges, in the new prison that stands opposite the Nablus regular court. I appeared before the court on 23 April 2009. I saw the complainant, who said he had met me in the Naqab about 20 years earlier. For my part, I did not know him — that is a long time, and even if I had known him, he had completely slipped from my memory. The complainant spoke in disjointed sentences that were entirely lacking in accuracy. The only thing he was truthful about was that I had not mentioned his name. I was released on bail pending his bringing another witness. I pointed out to the judge that there was a recorded tape, but the judge agreed to allow the witness to be brought, in accordance with the prosecution’s request, represented by Roland Hamdeh. The session was set for 26 May 2009.

The important thing is that there is a confusion in this matter. I learned during my detention that Sheikh al-Bitawi had recently been shot, and that the person who shot him was Nu’man Amer (the complainant), who is detained by military intelligence. When I spoke about the phenomenon of security chaos, I mentioned the incident of the shooting of the sheikh, with the incident that took place in the village of Rujeib during the last Ramadan in mind. The complainant thought I was talking about the act he himself had committed.

In any case, I did not mention any people’s names, nor did I speak about any specific incident in particular.

I went to court on 14 May 2009, but the complainant did not appear, and no witnesses appeared. For the second time, the prosecution requested a postponement in order to bring the prosecution’s witness, the officer who was supposed to have received my complaint, Mr. Waddah al-Shaer. The case was postponed to 16 July 2009.

I went to court on 26 May 2009, but the complainant did not appear, and the witness did not appear. The case was postponed to 16 July 2009.

I went to court on 16 July 2009, but the judge did not appear. The court had not informed me that the judge would not be attending.

I asked the court clerk’s office to set a session, and a date was set for both cases: 22 October 2009.

I went to court on 22 October 2009, but neither of the two complainants appeared, and no witnesses appeared. I protested to the court, but the judge postponed both cases to December, hoping the prosecution would bring witnesses.

The court convened on 24 December 2009, and both cases were postponed, due to the prosecution’s inability to bring witnesses, to 18 March 2010. On 18 March 2010, the prosecution requested a witness in one of the cases, the one relating to the interview with Al-Aqsa television. The prosecution closed its evidence with respect to the first case, relating to Mahdi Marqa. For my part, I informed the judge that I had filed a formal complaint against Mahdi Marqa with the police over the shooting at my car. As for the second case, I submitted to the court the audio-visual recording of my interview with Al-Aqsa television, as well as a literal written transcript of what I said. The prosecution claimed that the compact disc I had submitted was of my own making. The judge ruled that this matter was subject to the court’s discretion. Both cases were then postponed until 28 April 2010.

The Official and the Promoter

The person primarily responsible for my political arrest, dressed up as a baseless criminal case, is Dr. Salam Khaled Fayyad, who is responsible for Preventive Security and the Palestinian security apparatus, followed by Mr. Baha Farouq al-Ahmad, head of the Nablus public prosecution, who signed off on my arrest without any evidence. These two men used the law in an arbitrary, malicious manner.

As for the one who took it upon himself to announce my criminal arrest, it was Dr. Jamal al-Muhaisen, governor of Nablus, via An-Najah University Radio. The university radio station broadcast Dr. al-Muhaisen’s view and did not call my home to get the other side, especially since I am a professor at the university. And Ma’an News Agency broadcast the criminal charge immediately, without calling my family to verify. It was only my family who called in to deny it.

As for the one who wronged me the most, it was His Excellency General Adnan al-Damiri, to whom the proverb applies: “Beware the evil of the one to whom you have done good.” He made arbitrary statements on satellite television without having read what I wrote or heard what I said.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “قصة الاعتقال الجنائي” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.