Democratic Palestine : 38 (ص 11)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 38 (ص 11)
- المحتوى
-
WK
How long was the AIC closed, and what changes,
if any, were made after it reopened?
The center was ordered closed for six months. We then
appealed to the district court, but the center was not
allowed to reopen before the end of this six-month period.
So for six months we were cut off from our center and our
equipment. In addition, despite the court orders to return
Our equipment and our archives, most of our archives were
destroyed, and our equipment was in such bad condition we
could not use it. This had a big effect on our technical
capacity, making it more difficult to renew our budget, our
daily work and our publications. We had a daily information
bulletin which we sent to press agencies in Israel and abroad
by our facsimile machine which we never got back. On the
other hand, the closure gave a lot of publicity to the center.
In the beginning people were saying that this was not an
information center, but a group of terrorists running a spy
agency. However, soon after that not only the Israeli left
and the progressive sector of Israeli society, but also some
mainstream organizations, including the journalists’ union in
Jerusalem, writers and Knesset members, questioned the
allegations against the center, and expressed support. They
did not accept the closure of a center which had been pro-
viding accurate and important information.
The effects of the closure on work in the center stem
from my release by the Supreme Court after one month in
prison. One of the conditions of my release was that I would
not be allowed to go back to the center as long as the legal
procedure was going on, which somehow affected the
center. Also, some of the workers were a little bit afraid
after the closure and stopped working for our center. But
the old team and the new employees decided to go on,
whatever may happen, and not to stop doing what we
believe is very important, both on the level of providing
information and Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. The last
thing, the trial itself, is costing a lot of money and time. We
have had to allocate an important part of our resources to
the trial, which is at the expense of other priorities. But I
hope the trial will be over in the near future, and we’ll be
able to renew all our old projects and start new ones.
Can you explain the new amendment to the anti-
terror ordinance?
The prevention of terrorism act makes any kind of contact,
support or relations with any kind of Palestinian institution
illegal. Under the old articles of this act, anything which
could be understood as supporting or expressing solidarity
with «terrorist organizations» is prohibited. This broadens
the definition of «terrorist organizations» to include any
organization which may have a link to the PLO. Like the
interrogator from the Shin Bet said at my trial, «Any institu-
tion in the occupied territories - cultural, political, social,
charity- is PLO.» This means, for example, anyone,
whether Palestinian or Israeli, who has any kind of cultural
contact with any one of these groups - like going to Al
Hakawati theater - can be accused of supporting a terrorist
organization. The second amendment which was adopted in
1985-86 prohibits any contacts with Palestinians who are
officials of the PLO, even if these are public talks about
Democratic Palestine, March-April 1990
peace. In fact, four of our friends in the peace movement
in Israel are now in jail, condemned to six months for hav-
ing met a PLO representative at a public meeting in
Romania.
Now there is a new amendment, the third one to the
prevention of terrorism act, which is trying to outlaw and
confiscate the money of any organization that is linked to
the PLO or any «terrorist organization.» Although in the
past getting money from the PLO or any illegal Palestinian
Organization would have been illegal, what is new in this
amendment is that it can be an administrative measure used
by the police, and not a matter to be put to trial. This
includes not only money coming directly from the PLO but
money coming from any institution in the world where you
cannot prove the money was not from a «terrorist organiza-
tion.» Tomorrow if there is a center that gets money from
a church group in Italy, for example, they would have to
prove that the money of this organization is not coming
from the PLO. And if you prove the money of this organi-
zation is coming from another one, say, in the US, the
center would have to prove that this US organization is not
getting money from the PLO. In other words, the burden of
proof is on us, not the authorities, making it a very arbitrary
measure. This will cut financing to institutions that need
money from any kind of charity organization.
How do the authorities justify closing the AIC
within the framework of Israeli democracy?
It is as I told you before, by way of connection. As this
interrogator told me, this happens when you are working
with the Palestinians, supporting their cause. This has been
my political line for 20 years. I’ve never hidden my support
for the Palestinian struggle, nor my solidarity. So, there is
a stage at which the authorities say: Okay. The law exists,
and it is not written into the law that only Palestinian
institutions can be closed, but they can also close the AIC.
They hadn’t done it until now. This was a political decision
to say: You are too close to the Palestinians, so we would
have to treat you as we are treating the Palestinians.
We are very angry about the closure, but somehow we
are proud to be put together with the Palestinians because
we are accused of something we are proud to have done.
We say it is not illegal. We express our solidarity and sup-
port to the Palestinians in struggle within the limits of the
law, because we want to keep our action legal. They say it
is not legal. Okay. For that, we will go to trial and we’ll see
whether we win or not. We want to be legal. We want it in
our statutes that we will print material for any progressive
organization. We’ll not ask who they are, except if there will
be a clear law which forces us to do so. Then we’ll have to
decide what to do, because we want to keep our legality.
The principle is to help as much as is legally possible.
What repercussions did closing the center have
on Israeh public opinion? You mentioned this,
but can you elaborate?
Yes. I want to elaborate because this is a big failure for
the authorities, in my opinion. One of the aims of this step >
11 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 38
- تاريخ
- أبريل ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed