As Khader Adnan’s case took over the news cycle this week, I noticed comments by thoughtful readers, generally on my Facebook feed, pointing out Adnan’s association with terror. They have circulated a video in which Adnan asks who the next suicide bomber will be, pointed to his affiliation with Islamic Jihad, and asked: How can you root for a terrorist? How can supposed progressives like us rally around him?
(I would have posted the video but YouTube has blocked it in recent hours, claiming it violates its content standards. Note: Adnan does not make an explicit call for suicide bombing in the video but he does seem to call for violence and certainly it does not show him in a “Gandhist” light)
I do not know Adnan and did not know of his existence until recently. I cannot vouch for his character and do not know what he has or has not done. He may seek to cause me harm without even knowing me. He may be a really bad guy who just wants to kill Jews.
But his behavior and possible crimes are not at issue – and have not been demonstrated. How the state treats him is. The man has been held in prison by the government to which I pay taxes without charge, due to an unethical and longstanding practice used by Israel to punish and deter all kinds of acts of resistance. And no one can argue that it is okay just because administrative detention falls under Israeli law. The documentary The Law in These Parts effectively displays the ways in which an entire system of Israeli law and justice has been built to fit a specific political agenda.
The fact is that the man went on a hunger strike that lasted over two months and severely endangered his health. He had to risk his life in order to get the state to reach the logical conclusion that the military court must release him if it cannot provide evidence against him within an allotted period of time. But this is how the practice should always be. Even in exceptional cases, in which is it acceptable under international law to detain someone without trial due to security concerns, there is a period of time by which the person must either be tried or released. Yes, even if that person is a terrorist. And if that suspect is indeed a future murderer, then the law has failed humanity – this has happened many times in the world and unfortunately will continue to happen. It is a price that is paid in societies where people are innocent till proven guilty, and not the other way around.
I wasn’t rooting for Khader Adnan the individual, and those that believe that us “radical lefties,” “so-called peace-loving progressives” are celebrating a terrorist are simply missing the issue at hand. As Mitchell Plitnick poignantly just expressed it:
I am delighted that Khader Adnan will not starve to death. I only wish that the eyes of the world had enough scope to focus not only on his effort, but also on this abhorrent practice that is a stain on the admittedly tattered honor of not only Israel, but also the United States.
My opposition to this Israeli policy (a policy rampant in plenty other countries, east and west, more democratic and less) does not translate into cheering for Palestinians. I was not rooting for Adnan so much as I was lamenting the fact that in the country I live in, a person must starve himself in order to receive basic fair treatment. While the deal is a step in the right direction, unless it leads to fundamental revamping of policy, I fear it will have merely been a way for Israel to continue administrative detention under the guise of a morality check.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
David
Yes, but this is where you went very very wrong.
You could have said “this guy is scum who wants suicide bombers to kill our civilian friends – but nevertheless, we oppose detention which is an immoral policy”.
Instead, you completely failed to mention this guy’s background, portrayed him as an innocent baker, and printed his bloody awful poetry.
This is PRECISELY what Norman Finkelstein meant when he described part of the Left as a ‘cult’.
As John Lennon put it:
“But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait”
David
In other words, do you want to run an honest broad based campaign, in which you treat your potential audience as adults?
If so, I’m with you
If not, then you’re running a dishonest campaign which people will see through, and will therefore be restricted to people who actually are quite OK with the thought of a theocratic terrorist organisation like Islamic Jihad, which would slaughter you and your family, as well as slaughtering and oppressing Palestinians who were “the wrong kind of Muslims”.
Please, time for a bit of honesty. This isn’t just about you. It isn’t even just about +972. It is endemic in progressive politics.
JG
Agree with Mairov, but remember that the U.S. Civil Rights movement might have been somewhat stalled if Rosa Parks had had a history like Khader Adnan.
At the risk of violating 18 USC § 2339B (which criminalizes mere advice to designated terrorist groups, upheld by SCOTUS 6-3), it would seem prudent to me for any Palestinian activist who had once advocated violence (and caught on video no doubt) to create a new video today and reflect today. I’ll even side with Larry Derfner’s infamous position that such behavior could be understood.
And this is not just abstract — the standard pro-Zionist talking point is that the Palestinians “must renounce violence.” We now have a medium for everyone to post a video online. If not now, when?
David
But what evidence is there that Adnan would ever make such a video?
Jazzy
This piece is illustrative of the kind rhetoric designed to keep anti-Zionist extremists and tacitly Zionist progressives under the same ‘human rights’ tent. Confronted with having to balance Israel’s legitimate security concerns about Islamic Jihad and its ilk against the rights of Palestinian prisoners, Mairav offers something to both camps. First, to the anti-Zionists, she says “But his behavior and possible crimes are not at issue – and have not been demonstrated. How the state treats him is.” That is to say, wink wink, no threat to Israeli lives will ever justify the slightest infringement on the Palestinian right to a speedy trial (might as well add an ‘under international law’ here for good measure next time). The deeper meaning here is obvious since, if we were to rely on the literal meaning of the statement, it becomes a comically disingenuous thing to say: Mairav is writing this piece specifically in response to those who believe that Islamic Jihad is at issue. But, she would lose her die-hards if she gave any slack to sincere human rights progressives on the Islamic terrorism issue. No can do. Better to conceal tacit agreement with the Islamic Jihad sympathizers behind obfuscatory language about ‘what’s at issue’. Mairav – whatever you don’t think is ‘at issue’ is something that you, substantively, are taking a position on, especially in a piece that, according to you, was written about what you now claim is not at issue. In the words of Finkelstein – you’re not fooling anybody. Once you step out of your cult, you don’t have a prayer with this crap. Everyone knows that Islamic Jihad is an issue. But then, Mairav offer something to her progressive fans who’ve been complaining. She says “…due to an unethical and longstanding practice used by Israel to punish and deter all kinds of acts of resistance.” Oh…ok, so now we’re talking about ‘resistance’, which includes things like non-violent protest, so now, as a progressive, I’m on board with efforts to support ‘resistance’. Oh wait, what? You won’t condemn Islamic Jihad’s ‘resistance’ either? Hmmm…now I’m not so sure I agree with Mairav…I don’t know how long, post-Finkelstein, you think you can kept this balancing act going. Pretending that Islamic Jihad isn’t at issue is transparently evasive to the progressive, sane public (outside the BDS cult) who understand perfectly well that this conflict is not really about ‘human rights’ at its core, even if they agree that administrative detention is one of many disagreeable symptoms of the occupation. Face it – you need this constituency, and you’re going to lose it if you keep up the word games. You’re simply not capable of fooling people with this garbage. Heed Chomsky’s advice – stop sabotaging credible peace advocates by promoting BDS. Your concessions about Adnan not being ‘a saint’, and about the tragic consequences of letting murderers out of jail too soon do not soft your ultimate position, which rejects the legitimacy of Israeli measures to fight terrorism. Again, not fooling anybody.
Akiva
Some of you people have missed the key point! This article has little to nothing to do with Khader Adnan or his point of view, and everything to do with the problems inherent in the Israeli “justice” system.
It shouldn’t matter what political positions someone holds in the eyes of the law. That unfortunately is not the case in today’s Israel.
It is the Israeli state itself that is undermined – not Palestinian militants or Islamic Jihad – when the rule of law and due process is compromised in this way.
Even if you think Khader Adnan’s politics are repugnant, does that mean due process of law shouldn’t apply to him if he doesn’t choose to “renounce violence”? What does that actually even mean – and is that a fair and necessary prerequisite for being treated with dignity?
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard lots of Israeli Jews advocate war with and violence against Palestinian Arabs. I’m definitely sure not one of them has yet been arrested for doing so, let alone held without charge.
This isn’t about Khader Adnan, but about the pervasive treatment of Palestinians as people without integrity, “rights,” or any legitimate claim to political sovereignty.
And it’s not just about Palestinians: if arresting someone and holding them indefinitely without charge is deemed legal, then what will prevent the state from continuing to violate basic norms of social justice in more flagrant ways, threatening to erode the liberties of other subjects, as well?
Bottom line: If Adnan committed a crime, he should have been charged – and probably would have been. The likely implication of this is that short of advocating political positions unfavorable to Israel, there is no evidence that he has committed a crime (short of being a member / leader of Islamic Jihad, which maybe some people think should be a crime, but I don’t think it actually is, is it?).
Anyway, who convened the court of moral judgment in the comments section? I’d argue in focusing on what seems repugnant about Adnan, you’re completely missing the crucial point, which is about a criminal justice system that adheres to minimum standards of human liberty and dignity.
@ J.G. The Civil Rights movement DID have to confront political repression, and if you broaden the scope to members of the Black Panther movement, were more than stalled by such events as the assassination of Fred Hampton and several other Panthers, deliberate FBI subterfuge, and much, much more. Government repression is probably one of the greatest factors that led to the fracturing that took place in the CRM in the late ’60s. Did you know that Hoover considered Martin Luther King, Jr. a dangerous threat – more or less the equivalent of a terrorist?
Steve
Another youtube account has reposted the video showing this guy openly screaming in favor of suicide bombing of Israeli Jews:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FupY1qT99TY
.
As for Mairav Zonszein, she’s one of many who, just judging by what she writes, has made it clear that antisemitism doesn’t seem to offend her, support for Israel’s destruction doesn’t seem offend her, but an Islamic Jihad terrorist being detained slightly longer than he “should” be, THAT angers and offends her.
…
People who consider themselves, liberal, progressive and peace-minded really need to maybe take a few steps back, stop and look at the big picture, look at the type of company they’re keeping, look at how much time they spend rallying in favor of harming Israel, and really reevaluate their lives.
Steve
AKIVA wrote: “Did you know that Hoover considered Martin Luther King, Jr. a dangerous threat – more or less the equivalent of a terrorist?”
…
My response: Wow, Akiva is yet another here who is literally lying TO HERSELF trying to convince her brain that the above reference to MLK in any way makes Islamic Jihad terrorist leaders just a tiny bit nicer/better.
Steve
The real problem is Israel’s justice system? And not that massive terrorist organizations want to wipe Israel out??? Israel has to behave perfectly when dealing with Islamic Jihad terrorists who want to murder every last Jew?!? That’s the outrage here?
David
“It is the Israeli state itself that is undermined – not Palestinian militants or Islamic Jihad – when the rule of law and due process is compromised in this way.
Even if you think Khader Adnan’s politics are repugnant, does that mean due process of law shouldn’t apply to him if he doesn’t choose to “renounce violence”? ”
.
.
Right, and this is precisely the argument that should have been made up front. Some will agree, some will disagree. We have precisely the same debate in the UK.
.
.
HOWEVER – and this is the point – +972 has only just started to admit that Adnan is not some poor poet and baker, but somebody who dreams of killing your innocent family members: and who quite literally believes that he’s on a mission from God.
.
.
But +972 didn’t mention this in your coverage, up to now. So, instead of having me, as a constitutionalist, supporting you: instead, I think that I have been treated as a fool and lied too.
.
.
David
Sorry – lied *to*
.
.
Similarly, if a Baruch Goldstein supporter were arrested and detained, we might also say “due process” and “rule of law”.
.
.
However, what would your reaction be to a magazine which characterised the Baruch Goldstein type in detention as “a good Jew, a family man whose children are missing him, never forgets to lain tefillin… ” and completely covered up or failed to mention his fascist politics?
.
.
The impression such a magazine would create is that it is a supporter of fascism.
Jazzy
Akiva: same tactic as Mairav – telling us what is and what isn’t ‘the point’ is the same as making a substantive argument. You fail.
Matthew Graber
The case of Khader Adnan is one of an innocent man (according to judicial process) being held in prison for 5 months.
As you rightly pointed out Mairav, this has become regular and normalized within American and Israeli courts. And Khader demonstrated to the world that an innocent man cannot be held for longer than he can survive without food.
I don’t think its a very debatable topic, and I think it’s been left to Israeli trolls and fear-mongerers to try to justify such abhorrent actions by the state.
As far as Palestinian tactics of resistance: during the second intifada, Arafat and the majority of Palestinians saw self defense as necessary, and therefore didn’t denounce violence against Israelis. But in denouncing Palestinian violence, one needs to recognize and denounce Israeli violence against Palestinians (which was the policy during the second intifada and is SO frequent today) at the same time. Anything less is a dangerous game that leads to collective punishment.
Steve
Wow, MATTHEW GRABER sure white-washes Palestinian intifadas and terrorism against Jews. “They saw self-defense as necessary,” he simply states about the intifada where Palestinians were blowing Jews up in buses and restaurants. Oh, OK then!
cmg
How many of you speak Arabic and can attest to the accuracy of the subtitles??? None of you. The Israeli Ministry of Propaganda is well aware of how dumb and gullible most Americans are. In the reduced, cognitively-declined world of the typical American who has (a) never stepped outside the U.S. (or Israel) and (b) is clueless about other languages & cultures, an Arab man with a beard = Islamic terrorist. While Adnan is hardly a pacifist, he IS NOT RECRUITING SUICIDE BOMBERS IN THIS CLIP. And if he is guilty of acts of terrorism and/or leading an Islamic Jihad, as Israel claim, why won’t they present the evidence? What we do know for certain is that there are more than 300 Palestinians (more than 100 minors) in administrative detention in Israeli jails who have been charged with nothing and can be held indefinitely. Here are the stats from the Israeli HR organization B’Tselem: http://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/statistics
Steve
CMG said: “an Arab man with a beard = Islamic terrorist.”
…
My response: No, but an Arab man with a beard who also happens to be an Islamic Jihad spokesman who is also screaming support for suicide bombings = Islamic terrorist.
Piotr Berman
It is not very peculiar to Israel, but I am not sure if this concept is equally controversial in other countries apart from USA and Israel.
Namely, that human rights are not “universal rights of nice people”. In typical USA context someone would raise an issue about some appalling characteristics of the prison system and the “majority” reaction is “didn’t those people commit crimes”? And then it boils down to — is it OK if bad people are raped? How bad a person should be at the point when we do not give a damn if he/she is raped?
Liberals are being accused of being “moral relativists” because to them thing like sexual intercourse without marriage are bad if non-consensual and “who cares” if consensual. Conservatives view torture as abhorrent if applied to “nice people” and “who cares” if applied to “bad people”. [The labels conservative/liberal may be a bit arbitrary here, but this is roughly the way it works in USA.]
So now the dialogue is roughly like that: “Folks, this is really bad stuff.” “So you claim that it was done to nice people? See that video!” “The state should not imprison someone twice on the basis of one video and should never torture and detain without charges.” “Didn’t you read totally terrifying translation of that video?”
Rico
can anyone point me to evidence of khader adnan’s supposed terrorist political views?
i’m not trying to say he isn’t despicable, but i have not been able to find any articles or reports of any kind that aren’t focused on his damn hunger strike.
Jazzy
Rico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FupY1qT99TY
DT
@RICO :
Steve already posted the youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FupY1qT99TY .
You stated that you weren’t able to find any links, but checking previous m=commenters is a good place to start
. It is mentioned also in http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-21/news/31083628_1_palestinian-militants-jihad-activist-hunger-strike
Piotr Berman
As you see Rico, Shin Beth is better at using search engines than you. I do not know Arabic and the translator of the video is unreliable. But the legal issue remains: how many times it is OK to detain and torture a bad guy on the basis of one video? Is 6 times enough?
And if we torture evil Khader 6 times, and innocent Abu Sisi once (well, but for a year), are we 85% righteous?
Steve
Khader Adnan is an Islamic Jihad member. And he used to be one of their spokesmen.
…
Yet extreme-left anti-Israel bigots who pretend to be peace activists were rooting for him, “in solidarity.” Sickening.
Piotr Berman
How many times it is OK to capture, torture, keep for few months and release in a single documented act of support for “illegal organization” (Israel devalued the meaning of it quite a bit)?
Once? Seven? Twenty?
Piotr Berman
I guess Steve will just keep repeating “did you see the video”?
In the moral universe of Steve, people have various categories of righteousness and evility that are precisely determined by the wise people he trusts.
All evil people can be tortured any time wise people find it useful.
Evil people can be assassinated any time wise people find it useful.
And they can be detained and released any time wise people find it useful.
No treaty, law, etc. should be used to undermine the judgement of wise people. Criticism of the activity of the wise against the evil people is also evil, and the proper actions should be devised by the wise people.
Not hard to understand. In cases where nothing supports the wisdom of the wise people, like the kidnapping, torture, prepostereous indictment, denial of medical care and continuing solitary confinement of Dirar Abu Sisi we must admit that the wise people are wiser that we are and bow to their larger wisdom.