- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Amnesty International has accused the Israeli authorities of bullying and judicial harassment of Nariman Tamimi, a Palestinian rights activist who was placed under partial house arrest on Thursday to prevent her taking part in peaceful protests while she awaits trial next week."This is an unrelenting campaign of harassment, the latest in a litany of human rights violations against Nariman Tamimi, her family, and her fellow villagers. These arbitrary restrictions should be lifted immediately and the charges should be dropped," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme Direct
During the protest a soldier approached them waving a piece of paper and saying they could be arrested if they did not leave. When they tried to leave the area, more soldiers approached and arrested them. Both women were charged with being in a "closed military zone".Following their release on bail on Monday, the court has now put them under partial house arrest. They are not allowed to leave their family homes between 9am to 5pm on Fridays when the weekly protest takes place.
Read more @: Amnesty International: Stop Judicial
Welcome to Israel. You protest against the regime you get arrested and then being denied more rights to go out and protest against actions that Israel does that go against international laws, and yet they uphold themselves as being democratic and a beacon in the Middle East.
OMG!!! A woman was placed under house arrest after violating a closed military zone order !!!!
:yawn:
:yawn:
Ignoring one fact: "When they tried to leave the area, more soldiers approached and arrested them. Both women were charged with being in a "closed military zone"
I thought you ignored that part, as it justifies the restrictions.
:roll:
A soldier approaches them telling them to leave because they were on a cmz, as they tried to wllinguflly leave (as they were told) they were arrested.
Read more @: Amnesty International: Stop Judicial
Welcome to Israel. You protest against the regime you get arrested and then being denied more rights to go out and protest against actions that Israel does that go against international laws, and yet they uphold themselves as being democratic and a beacon in the Middle East.
People who have been to the restricted zone recently, to the point of security concern, do not need to be available to those interested in further provocation/penetration. It's reasonable precaution.
I agree 100%. But they are also another nations that breaches international law, and also partakes in strict and brutal engagementCompared to most of the nations around and near them, Israel IS a beacon of democracy.
Peaceful protesters are "enemies" that doesn't sound like much of a "beacon of democracy".It is well I am not the ruler of Israel; I would not be nearly so patient, nor exercise remotely as much restraint in dealing with her enemies.
They were willingfully leaving the zone after given instructions to do so, and their punishment after following strict orders to leave is to give them house arrest?
Having scouted a neutral zone, it's best they no longer continue in the employment of the troublemakers.
So give them house arrest and hold them from partaking in a major part of the democratic process of peacefully protesting?
That seems entirely reasonable, given their established propensity to disregard the law and threaten security during said "protesting".
So house arrest? Does this not seem politically motivated?
Security motivated and based on physical evidence indicating a propensity to violate the law.
So by entering a zone they did not know was a security zone and then by following orders to leave it indicates a "propensity" to violate the law, after when ordered to voluntarily leave they do so on their own?
That's one side of the story and nonetheless constitutes criminal activity and a security concern.
Whats the "other side"?
Scouts and provocateurs.
You're gonna have to elaborate.
Ok, I'll make the sentence longer but simpler and pretend that I have not provided context:
They could be scouts and provocateurs who threaten security and stability, and they are charged with a crime indicating such.
Any evidence of the such or is is just another no evidence claim?
She has been arrested and is required to stand trial. In the meantime, no more illegal scouting and rabble rousing missions.
So no proof that she was a "scout"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?