+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Young Palestinian girls detained on suspicion of - eating cherries

Four Palestinian girls, at least one of whom is under the age of criminal culpability, are detained and brought for interrogation — without their parents being present — based on a complaint made by a local settler.

Israeli soldiers and police detained four Palestinian girls between the ages of 11 and 15 on suspicion of — eating cherries from trees belonging to the Jewish settlement of Maon in the south Hebron hills on Tuesday. The four were held at the Kiryat Arba police station.

The girls, who live in Khirbet Tuba in the south Hebron hills and go to school in a-Twane, are escorted to and from school on a daily basis by Israeli soldiers. The escorts are a response to years of harassment by settlers who attack Palestinian children on their way to and home from school.

According to B’Tselem, a settler from Maon told the soldiers who were escorting the Palestinian girls that they ate some cherries from the settlement’s trees. According to the report, the soldiers immediately called the police, who took the girls to the Kiryat Arba police station to be interrogated.

Special coverage: Children under occupation

Atty. Gaby Lasky, who is representing the minors, spoke with police on the phone and she was told that the 11 year old and another girl, who apparently has learning and speech disabilities, were released once their parents were contacted. The two others were being held for questioning.

“I have a murder and manslaughter cases that they haven’t questioned the suspects for over a year, but [these girls] need to be interrogated immediately, and without the presence of their parents,” Lasky said.

If the girls were Jewish, it would be illegal for the police to question them without the presence of their parents.

A request for comment was sent to the police and IDF spokespersons. We will update this article if and when they respond.

Update: According to B’Tselem, the two remaining girls were being released without charge or bail.

Related:
WATCH: IDF detains 5-year-old Palestinian in Hebron
Assessing developments in Israel’s juvenile military courts

Read this post in Hebrew on ‘Local Call’ here.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      “Israeli soldiers and police detained four Palestinian girls between the ages of 11 and 15 on suspicion of — eating cherries from trees belonging to the Jewish settlement of Maon in the south Hebron hills on Tuesday. The four were held at the Kiryat Arba police station”. (…) According to B’Tselem, a settler from Maon told the soldiers who were escorting the Palestinian girls that they ate some cherries from the settlement’s trees.

      With this kind of imbecilic story, you guys arouse the lowest of human instincts and emotions, inflame passions and create and keep alive an extensive orgy of hate against the State Of Israel en encourage the harassments, stabbings and terrorist murder of Jews around the world, especially in Europe. Kol hakavod! You guys at +972 are really the best.

      Reply to Comment
      • sh

        The lowest of human instincts is Israel’s continued arrests of children, interrogating them without the presence of their parents. This while being obliged by law not to do that to Jewish children of that age, not even if they rob Bank Leumi or stab someone to death, never mind pick a cherry or two from trees on a piece of private land that belongs to a Palestinian.

        “The illegal outpost of Havat Maon, built on privately-owned Palestinian land, was evacuated in 1999, but was reestablished shortly thereafter. In 2006, then Defense Minister Amir Peretz announced that the outpost was on a short list of sites to be evacuated, due to the outpost`s history of violence. The evacuation was never carried out.”
        http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=27496

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          No one, not even a grown-up let alone children/juveniles should be arrested, detained and interrogated for randomly plucking and eating cherry from anyone’s private land. This story is just false! Tha’s what infurieates me.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “The lowest of human instincts is Israel’s continued arrests of children, interrogating them without the presence of their parents. This while being obliged by law not to do that to Jewish children of that age, not even if they rob Bank Leumi or stab someone to death, never mind pick a cherry or two from trees on a piece of private land that belongs to a Palestinian”

            This statement is flat-out false because (a) even if Israel interrogates children outside the presence of their parents, (regardless of the specific circumstance of each individual case) that in- and of itself could NEVER amount to “the lowest of human instinct” if you know what that means and (b) the statement is of such a blanket nature that it amounts to the logical fallacy of secundum quid and false generalization.

            Reply to Comment
          • sh

            “even if Israel interrogates children outside the presence of their parents, (regardless of the specific circumstance of each individual case) that in- and of itself could NEVER amount to “the lowest of human instinct” if you know what that means and (b) the statement is of such a blanket nature that it amounts to the logical fallacy of secundum quid and false generalization.”

            And with that juicy bunch of pompous, empty words you have proved neither of your contentions.

            The lowest human instinct is to knowingly, purposely, traumatize the defenseless.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “The lowest human instinct is to knowingly, purposely, traumatize the defenseless.”

            Listen Sh, your claim is internally inconsistent and thus false. Reason: (a) the word: “instinct” on the one hand, and (b) the combined words: “knowingly, purposefully traumatize” on the other hand are mutually exclusive. That which is instinctive cannot at the same time be the product of a rational, willful design. Thus “knowingly, purposely, traumatize the defenseless” is everything but instinctive. I am sure you are smart enough to see the distinction because I won’t run around circles with you. Do your research and above all THINK!

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            You know that this story is false because…….

            Were you there? I doubt it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            And you know this story is true because? Were you there, Jan? I doubt it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ahmed

            Since you are bullshiting everyone about the fallacy of their logic using rational reasoning, you should know that it’s a logical fallacy to answer a question with another question. Before you impress yourself with your rational skepticism, you should know that having a loaded assumption is the greatest fallacy of all. You should learn and THINK. But before that, please answer the question. Does it SURPRISE you that Israel does this? Well, the very fact that the occupation law ALLOWS it, is enough to challenge it. But are you being rational by reasoning that: despite the draconian laws which allows the arrest and interrogation of minors, you will not believe that this actually happens. Even if someone somewhere has reported it – in this case and in others. I wasn’t there when the Holocaust happened, so I’m not sure if it did, you will also reason…but maybe not voice it out loud?

            You are silly, more-so your reasoning.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            nsttnocontentcomment

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            This story is false? You wish.

            972 is not the only outlet telling the truth. Here is the story from Haaretz, a news outlet you probably don’t like either because it also reveals some of the sordid things done by Israel that you, my dear, would prefer to be hidden.

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.595682

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            See the comments down thread. I am sure you can read. They provide the answers to the questions you have but don’t know to ask. And pls. before you engage in the usual emotional and sentimental tantrum, think and reflect.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Ginger – Now that the video is out for the world to see I am waiting for your to retract your statement that the story is false.

            Maybe you will think twice before you call a story that you don’t like false.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan, The Story Is FALSE!
            NO one was arrested.
            NO one was detained in the first place, let alone for eating cherries.
            The juveniles were accused of theft, the police was called, the police came and escorted the juveniles to the police station to tell their own story (WITHOUT arresting or detaining them). Unless you have some mental issue/retardation, this shouldn’t be difficult for you to get through your thick head, no?

            Reply to Comment
      • joe

        Israel does that. Daily.

        Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Ginger, why are you so afraid to have this story come out?

        Have you ever uttered a word of complaint when either the Israeli authorities or settlers destroy the olive or fruit trees of Palestinians? Many thousands have been destroyed or uprooted while some large and beautiful specimens have been taken from their land and planted Israel.Is that OK with you?

        Last week some 1500 mature fruit trees were bulldozed by Israeli authorities on land that has been owned by a Palestinian family since Ottoman times. Seems that one of the nearby illegal settlements covets the family’s land and what better way to make a grab for it then kill off one of the means by which this family makes a living. Is that OK with you? Don’t you think that someone should be arrested for that? It is far more serious than a few kids eating stolen cherries that were grown on stolen land.

        Ginger, does it not upset you to know that hundreds of Palestinian kids are imprisoned in Israeli jails, many who were beaten at the time of their arrest? Is that OK with you?

        Is it OK when settlers throw rocks at Palestinian kids on their way to school? Maybe so.

        Judging by the comments you made today and by your previous comments I believe, hopefully incorrectly, that you are OK with whatever Israel does but you don’t want anyone to talk about it if what they do is less than savory.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          I am sure you can read, Jan. I am equally sure you read nowhere that I am afraid of anything.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Mark@TheShire

      I think Ginger Eis is getting confused – it is surely the imbecilic actions of the State of Israel that arouses the lowest of human instincts and emotions. +972 is just presenting a factual story, and factual stories don’t come with a built in ‘imbecile content’ filter.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        No sir/mam. You are wrong. When you print a false story, said story can – by virtue of its nature – arouse basic human instincts such as ‘disgust’, ‘furry’, blind ‘hate’, ‘rage’, etc. that can lead to violence, harm to others, etc. That’s the kind of story we have here. What I am telling you is that your story is FALSE and as such imbecilic. Printing said story without any research, fact checking and reporting the full facts and the correct circumstances is not just seriously negligent by disturbingly unprofessional. Period. If you disagree, pls. present your EVIDENCE. Until you do that, pls. do not tell me that “+972 is just presenting factual stories”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Typo

          “… is not just seriously negligent BUT disturbingly unprofessional” – was meant.

          Reply to Comment
        • Reza Lustig

          You have yet to explain how you know this story is false. So far, all you’ve given us is hot air and empty indignation over semantics.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Does the cart pull the horse or does the horse pull the cart? My post is very clear. I am sure you are prudent enough to know how to divide the burden of proof. You decide.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            The story remains false and calculated to smear. Reason: (a) the children were NOT arrested, (b) the children were most definitely NOT “detained on suspicion of eating cherry” (no one is ever detained for eating anything), (c) in every Western country (incl. Israel) children/adults are questioned if they are accused of theft, (d) the children were escorted (without being arrested) to the police station to get their version of the story and were not detained for that to happen (in countries that operate on the “legality principle” such as Germany, etc. they would have been arrested, detained and charged!), (e) counsel/lawyer for the children paid by Israel was present (Israeli- and International law standards were thus met). Neither Israeli law nor International law makes the presence of the parents of the children mandatory, especially when counsel is present. There are several exceptions to the hard rule and many defense lawyers do NOT want parents present during questioning for fear that they might give their children bad legal advice. Additionally, in many cases parents either do not want to go to the police station or do not have the means to go there or could not be located within a reasonable period of time, etc.

            Reply to Comment
          • Rosa

            Dear Ginger

            I spent three months as an international human rights observer in the area where this incident took place in 2011 and experienced the intimidating presence of the settlers at Mahon. The local Palestinians have to walk under the gaze of these armed men who have cars to give chase whereas the Palestinians are on foot. Past violence against the CHILDREN going to school(stone throwing by settlers’ children led to a girl’s gashed head-reported only this month) has necessitated the IDR to ACCOMPANY THE CHILDREN TO SCHOL EACH DAY. I am disappointed that you resort to fine arguments and denial rather than feel ashamed and disturbed that CHILDREN should be subject to such threat and harassment! How frightening to be taken to the police station. How wrong not to have a parent present. How unacceptable to have two different codes of law for children in the same area. Where is your humanity and sense of justice? I am astounded and am sorry for you. Rosa(Grandmother from Scotland)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Dear Rosa, thanks for your kind words. The vast majority of Jews in Judea & Samaria (“the settlers”) co-exist peacefully with their Arabs neighbors. Local Arabs find good jobs within Jewish cities/Communities (“the settlements”) in Judea & Samaria and are paid same salary as their Jewish co-workers and far more than employees of the PA. However, the situation in a FEW isolated Jewish communities is a little dicey. There and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria, Palestinian militants can at any time/day slaughter entire Jewish families along with their infant children in their homes, streets or on the highway – as evidenced in the case of the Vogel family, etc. As such, the “settlers” are always alert, closely watching strangers who approach/enter their Communities and taking security measures. Such measures could lead to restrictions on others and appear intimidating to outsiders, but are necessary to save lives. Palestinian children do not face a life-and-death situation as do Jewish children in Judea & Samaria. The situation is thus not black&white as you imply in your post. There are two sides to every story and both sides must be heard in the interest of fairness. Pls. next time you are in Israel, do your best to approach the leaders of the Communities where children have to be escorted to/from school. I am definitely sure something (incl. alt. routes) can be worked out until both sides find a way to live in peace. Jews in said Communities are NOT evil. They are just afraid of being murdered along with their infant children. Thanks for the good work you do for children.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            a) They may not have been “arrested” in the legal sense. No one claimed they were. As always, you’re twisting the words and opinions you don’t like and don’t want to hear.

            They were detained. Pure and simple.

            b) They were detained for allegedly “stealing cherries”, for the purpose of eating them.

            c) Correct.

            d) You make it sound like the children had any say in the matter, or any choice. Of course they weren’t given any choice. I wasn’t there, but common sense tells me as much. They were detained. Pure and simple.

            e) False.
            First of all, the presense (or at least consent) of the parents is required in Israeli law. Of course only if the children are Jewish.

            In Germany for example, parents HAVE to be informed if their children are arrested/detained, and THEY HAVE TO BE given the possibility of being present when the children are present.

            And by the way, you claimed that:
            “No one, not even a grown-up let alone children/juveniles should be arrested, detained and interrogated for randomly plucking and eating cherry from anyone’s private land. This story is just false! Tha’s what infurieates me.”

            However, these children WERE detained, AND interrogated. So the story is completely true, since nobody ever claimed they were “arrested”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            (1) Felix Reicher, on the other thread you provided a lot of quotes that are at least suspect. I requested for the primary source of your quotes. You failed to give any. You just ran away. And here you are again making claims without foundation and mounting ad hominem attacks.
            (2) Now, you claim that the children “were detained. Pure and simple”. Pls. provide your evidence (text of the law, case law, literature or the detention order). Your “common sense” and/or ‘feelings” is/are NOT evidence.
            (3) You also claim that under Israeli law there are no exceptions to the hard-rule that children must be questioned in the presence of their parent(s). Pls. provide (a) the text of the law and (b) case law to support your claim (that’s how it works when you make claims that can only be based on the law!).
            (4) The rest of your post are irrelevant to the discussion and I won’t be addressing them. I gather you have axe to grind. But I won’t get into the gutter with you. Let’s see your evidence and hear your hard, cold, calculated arguments. No emotions, no muddying the discussion with irrelevant stuff and ad hominems or else I won’t bother replying. You have until midnight to make your case.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Felix Reichert, are you on the run yet AGAIN?! You just have to answer ONLY TWO questions that are VERY, VERY EASY. Please, don’t be a coward. Don’t run away again!

            While I await your answers, I and others are still waiting for the PRIMARY SOURCES of the fabricated quotes you provided on the thread: “Unilateral withdrawal makes a comeback in Israeli politics” by Noam Sheizaf. You need to prove that you are not a fraud and should be taken seriously. Your honor is on the line. Pls. defend yourself!

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Why would the police even bother to pick up girls because they picked some cherries?

            Kids all over the world pick fruit and it is likely that only a horrible person like the settler would complain and call the police. If those kids had been Jewish he probably would have told them to pick all the cherries that they wanted. But because these girls have committed the terrible crime of being born Palestinian instead of Jewish this disgusting settler called the police.

            Many in Israel complain that the Palestinians incite against Israel. How do you think these girls are going to feel? Have they been given any reason by the settlers or by the police to have good feelings about Jews and Israel? Of course not.

            This incident is just one more in the long sad list of Israeli incitement.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Haifawi

      Taking a handful of fruit has always been permissible according to all the religious texts here.
      Besides, there were soldiers ESCORTING the girls. I’m sure if they did anything to warrant an interrogation the Guardians of Israel would be on it like a sweaty wool coat on a Haredi.
      Anyway, I didn’t know that Maon has cherries. Maybe I’ll swing by next week and ‘liberate’ some.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Rab

      I think you should check Richard Silverstein’s site. He claims they’re Mossad cherries.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rab

        Thank you for the video.

        Up until now I thought this was an idiotic story.

        Now I know it is.

        Mountains out of molehills. Seriously.

        By the way, would someone teach the young woman to say “Zionist” instead of “Jew?” It just sounds like they mean Jews instead of Zionists.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        (1st post). Thanks, Sad Oranges (nice name, btw), for your nice post. Even this heavily edited video-clip shows that the story is FALSE. The clip shows the following:
        a. NO arrest was made.
        b. NO child was detained.
        c. Upon a criminal complaint and threat of violence, the police intervened. The juveniles were escorted to the police station to give their own side of the story and they did that happily. The girl with the white/purple headscarf even blossomed and smiled when she started to tell her story. Her companion was only asked of her name. This should be a good teaching material in police academies on how to handle children excellently!
        d. Under Israeli- and International law, juveniles may be questioned OUTSIDE the presence of their parent(s) – if certain requirements are met (e.g. the juvenile objects to the presence of her/his parents, counsel is present, etc). That appears to be the case here. (See 2nd post for the rest).

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        e. (2nd post). In Israel and ALL Western countries no one is EVER detained pre-trial for committing the very crime(s) she/he is accused of/arrested for. The legal grounds for ALL pre-trial detentions may only be (1) the interest of the investigation, (2) protective custody, (3) flight risk, (4) collusion-risk, (5) etc. but NEVER for the specific crime(s) the detainee is supposed to have committed/arrested for, because that would violate the principle of presumption of innocence (buffoons like Felix Reichert should take note!). Thus, in the present case the juveniles were not detained in the first place AND could NOT have been “detained for eating cherries” or for “stealing cherries and planning to eat them”. (see 3rd post for the last para).

        Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        f. (Last post). The editors of the video-clip edited-out the alleged questioning and the fictitious “detention” of the two other juveniles.
        g. The editors of the video-clip further edited-out the presence of the counsel/layer for the juveniles who is paid by Israel.
        Pls. all those who have been told by the hate machine against Israel and Jews that Israel brutalizes and traumatizes Palestinian children, this video-clip makes their imbecilic case. Even the Dutch police (the friendliest in the world, according to the Dutch) is not this nice and professional with children as the Israeli police is, at least according to this video-clip!

        Reply to Comment
        • Jan

          Ginger – Had those girls been Israeli Jews do you think that they would have been taken to a police station? Do you think that a settler would have complained?
          I think that the answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            There is only one way to get the correct answers to hypothetical questions: EXPERIMENTS, not automatic, biased assumptions. Come to Israel, gather a few Jewish juveniles together in a store, pretend to be the store owner, call the police and complain about ONGOING theft of candies and see what happens next – within FEW minutes! Pls. stop assuming the worst when it comes to Jews. That’s anti-Semitism – regardless of whether or not you yourself are a Jew! This is how they do it in YOUR country the US of A. Compare YOUR cops to Israel’s and see who comes out on top. Do your research before pointing fingers at Jews, you sob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-39GhipPDE

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            There is a big difference between going into a store and taking merchandise and picking a handful of cherries and if you can’t see the difference I can’t help you.

            As kids none of us saw anything wrong in taking a bit of fruit from a tree as long as we did not go into the neighbor’s backyard. And if the neighbor didn’t like what we were doing he or she certainly would not have been mean and petty enough to call the police. But maybe that is just what settlers are when it comes to Palestinian children – mean and petty. I guess he also shoots every bird that comes to take a bite of his cherries. Maybe next time he’ll start shooting kids as well.

            BTW, I have no brief for America’s cops some of whem, you might be interested to know, are being trained by Israeli cops. Many of America’s cops are brutal and trigger happy and seem to be a law unto themselves especially when it comes to dealing with blacks and latinos.

            I am not pointing my fingers at Jews in general. I point my finger at anyone, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, who oppresses another people, who steals their land, demolishes their homes etc. I point my finger at Arab countries such as Egypt and Bahrain who imprison those who oppose their tyrannic governments. I point my finger at my own government which was responsible for the death of at least a million Iraqis, 4 million refugees and the destruction of a country.

            I don’t have a double standard and if Jews are doing something I think is wrong I’ll call them out too. If you don’t like that well so be it. That is your problem and not mine.

            And, Ginger dear, I would not stoop to your low level and use a bad name against you. Too bad you felt you had to do that. But it shows what kind of a person you really are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan, I have given you the tools on how to empirically establish the truth, i.e. conduct experiments. The “store-owner-example” I gave you is just ONE example. You can think and find other examples that compare on a 1:1 ratio to the situation at issue, but the result(s) will be the same. That’s the crux of my post. Regardless, Palestinian killers often go with children, shepherds, unemployed European/ISM professional anarchists, etc. to scout the security situation of any (isolated) “settlement” they want to attack. They take note of the overall security situation, the “soft spots”, the reaction-time of security agents at the sighting of strangers, etc. and are thus better prepared to carry out successful terrorist murders. You can be sure the “settler” had more than cherries in his mind when he called the soldiers! There are a lot of stuff that determine the actions of the parties, that you don’t know and won’t see from your safe paradise in the US of A and from reading the DS published on +972.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan, I have given you the tools on how to empirically establish the truth, i.e. conduct experiments. The “store-owner-example” I gave you is just ONE example. You can find other examples that compare on a 1:1 ratio to the situation at issue, but the result(s) will be the same. That’s the crux of my post. Regardless, Palestinian killers often go along with out-of-the-loop children, shepherds, European/ISM professional anarchists, etc. to scout the security situation of any (isolated) “settlement” they plan to attack. They take note of the overall security situation, the “soft spots”, the reaction-time of security agents at the sighting of strangers, etc. and are thus better prepared to carry out successful terrorist murders. You can be sure the “settler” had more than cherries in his mind when he called the soldiers! There are a lot of stuff you don’t know and won’t see from your safe paradise in the US of A and from reading the DS published on +972.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            You have given me the tools? How arrogant of you.

            I could give you far more tools but you would just thumb your nose. Your blindness is absolutely appalling.

            BTW, what should Palestinians do after 47 years of a brutal occupation, an occupation that has seen over 25,000 of their homes demolished, their lands taken, their people thrown in prison often without charges being leveled against them, their olive and fruit trees destroyed etc. etc. etc and a thousand more etceteras.

            You likely believe that they should either leave or just allow this abysmal treatment to continue forever.

            As for “scouts” going along with the children you have really reached for the bottom of the barrel which is where most of your comments truly belong.

            Get real Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan, The Story Is FALSE And Remains FALSE, i.e.
            1. NO Palestinian children were arrested!
            2. No Palestinian children were detained in the first place, let alone “for eating cherries”. ALL pre-trial/criminal detentions begin with arrest. No arrest was made in this case. Without an arrest, there can be no pre-trial/criminal detention!
            These were the undeniable facts of the case when we started this discussion. These remain the undeniable facts of the case at the end of this discussion. End of story. But I am done. You wanna run around circles (with delusions of righteousness and in tantrums of misplaced emotions)? Knock yourself out!

            Reply to Comment
    5. Nicolas66

      Does someone remember that the only homicide for which Aldolf Eichmann was personally accused -as a direct perpetrator, let alone his key role in the genocide itself- was the murder of a Jewish teenager in Budapest, that Eichmann had accused of … stealing cherries
      http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/eichmann-in-budapest.html

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      The story is FALSE, i.e.
      1. NO Palestinian children were arrested!
      2. No Palestinian children were detained in the first place, let alone “for eating cherries”. ALL pre-trial/criminal detentions begin with arrest. No arrest was made in this case. Without an arrest, there can be no pre-trial/criminal detention!
      These were the undeniable facts of the case when we started this discussion. These remain the undeniable facts of the case at the end of this discussion. End of story. But I am done. You wanna run around circles (with delusions of righteousness and in tantrums of misplaced emotions)? Knock yourself out!

      Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        These children were taken in a police wagon to a police station and asked to sign a paper in Hebrew, a language they do not read. This has been typical operating procedure by Israel for a long time.

        Children are brought in, the parents are not with them and they are asked to sign papers in Hebrew.

        If you think that any of this is going to make these children feel good about Israel and about Jews than you must be out of your mind.

        Israel has a long record of abusing Palestinian kids which is well documented.

        Here is part of what was written. You will scream that what was written was all lies and that the authors of the report were all anti-Semites to the core.

        “The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed in its report Thursday its “deepest concern about the reported practice of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested, prosecuted and detained by the military and the police.”
        Palestinian children are routinely arrested, hands tied painfully and blindfolded during nighttime sweeps by Israeli soldiers, the report said. Authorities also often transfer the youngsters to detention centers without informing their parents.
        DW.DE

        The detained children regularly faced “physical and verbal violence, humiliation, painful restraints … [were] threatened with death, physical violence, and sexual assault against themselves or members of their family,” according to the report.
        “These crimes are perpetrated from the time of arrest, during transfer and interrogation, to obtain a confession but also on an arbitrary basis as testified by several Israeli soldiers as well as during pre-trial detention,” the report said.
        The report also documented 14 cases where Palestinian children were used as human shields between January 2010 and March 2013.
        “[Israeli] soldiers have used Palestinian children to enter potentially dangerous buildings ahead of them and to stand in front of military vehicles in order to stop the throwing of stones against those vehicles,” the report said.
        Growing number of children held
        Also addressed in the report was concern over the number of Palestinian children held in Israeli jails – an estimated 7,000 kids aged 12 to 17 years, but sometime as young as nine. An average of two children per day have been detained and arrested since 2002.
        Most of the children arrested were accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and settlers, an offense which can carry a 20-year sentence.”

        BTW, Ginger, you neglected to address the many abuses heaped on Palestinians by the Israeli occupiers. I guess none of those abuses bother you even when they cause Palestinians to hate those who commit those abuses.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Jan, Israel is a country of laws and will act to apply and uphold the law regardless of whose ox is gored. Neither the rich and the powerful (Moshe Katsav, Ehud Olmert, etc.) nor the poor and the weak get special treatment. A country that does not apply and uphold its laws in order to be loved (as you suggest) is doomed to collapse. If I were the “settler” I would have called the girls unto myself, stuffed their bags with cherries and apples and send them on their way (maybe the girls were hungry). But as I said before, the “settler” who called the police may have had other stuff in mind, i.e. security (unsuspecting children are sometimes used to test the preparedness of the security around some isolated settlements). I don’t know what went on in the mind of the “settler”. But once you get the police involved in anything, the law must run its course. The police is obligated to hear all the parties, investigate and document every aspect of the complaint and decide whether to file charges or to close the case and send the file to the archives. It could not have worked differently. Under Israeli law, a youth may be questioned OUTSIDE the presence of his/her parents if, among others, said youth does not want his/her parents present. I hope you find this info useful.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Regarding the quotes from the UN Human Rights Committee report I will tell you this: the information from the UN report is a complete fabricated nonsense. It should not be new to you that the Organization Of Islamic Conference (OIC) consisting of over 57 Muslim nations, abuse and misuse the UN to continue the war by other means against the ONE Jewish State Of Israel and that those who compile UN-reports re the conflict with Israel are almost exclusively (Arab) Muslims. Iran, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. are among those who compiled the report you quote from. In all of those countries, gays/lesbians are hanged in public, women are stoned to death in public for adultery, little girls are given away in marriage to sexually matured men and some of girls bleed to death after sex with them because they are still too you for such activities, etc. The UN Human Rights Committee is not interested in such barbarities. It rather, relative to other nations, condemns Israel by a more than 1:50 ratio. What is desperately missing in all of those Arab-UN reports is EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE! Pls. produce the EVIDENCE upon which said reports are based! Without EVIDENCE you have NO case. Or, do you think that every accusation brought forward against Jews must be accepted as true without EVIDENCE because the accused are Jews? You tell me, Jan.

          Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Israel is a country of laws, you wrote. Yes it is. One set of laws in Israel and the Occupied Territories for Jews and Military Law for Palestinians. I am really surprised that you seem so unaware of this.

            I was oh so correct when I knew that you would immediately slam the UN report, just as you likely slammed the Amnesty International report on trigger happy IDF soldiers.

            You, unlike me, most likely have a double standard when it comes to Israel. I am pretty darn sure that when the UN or Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch issues a damning report, as they have done, on Arab countries you would not be asking for EVIDENCE.

            Well here is a link to the report that was compiled by UNICEF, a UN group that helps children around the world. Of course you will disparage it because they don’t give names and dates.

            http://www.unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_oPt_Children_in_Israeli_Military_Detention_Observations_and_Recommendations_-_6_March_2013.pdf

            Perhaps you might also want to check some Israeli human rights organizations such as B’Tselem that does have names and dates and which also condemns Palestinian violations of human rights as well as Israeli violations of human rights.

            As for your comparing what Israel does to other countries has no meaning. What those countries do is horrible but I find it more than curious that when Israel is criticized people such as you point to other countries and say “hey, don’t criticize us because we are better than them.” Yes you are but that does not diminish what you do.

            I also noticed Ginger that you did not reply to my question of what Palestinians should do having been forced to live for close to 47 years until a military occupation which has seen thousands of the people killed, jailed or deported, over 25,000 homes demolished, many thousands of olive and fruit trees destroyed, thousands of dunams of land confiscated for settlements, all illegal under international law etc. etc. etc.
            There is more than enough EVIDENCE for all of that.

            Why did you not want to respond to that question? You are quick to respond to what you , in your incredible ignorance, view as libels against Israel. You remind me of the Germans who did not want to believe what was happening to Jews in Germany. As you, they just didn’t want to know or didn’t want anyone else in the world to know.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Ihave DEMONSTRATED that the story from +972 is FALSE, i.e.
            1. NO “young Palestinian girls” were arrested!
            2. No “young Palestinian girls” were detained in the first place, let alone “for eating cherries”.
            3. ALL pre-trial/criminal detentions begin with arrest. No arrest was made in this case. Without an arrest, there can be no pre-trial/criminal detention!
            These are the UNDENIABLE facts of the case and NO ONE here has been ABLE to prove otherwise/prove me wrong! As such, my case is well made. THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS THREAD. Pls. DO NOT reply, unless can prove me wrong on points 1, 2 and 3 above. If you continue to run aroud the circle with other stuff, you won’t get a reply from me, because I have given you more than enough leeway to deviate to- and ramble on other stuff unrelated to the accusation at issue!

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            1 & 2 to arrest or to detain someone.

            wiki (among others):
            “Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person’s liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement.”

            So it is clear there was an arrest (the children were not free to walk home). If this arrest was not legal it would be a crime to take the children. You do not want to imply that the arrest was illegal so it was a legal arrest.

            3
            An arrest was made otherwise it would be kidnapping. There was no trial because no crime was committed. There was however an arrest.

            Was it right to arrest the children? Silly question, of course not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Directrob, in posting my reply to you, I hit the wrong button. You can see the reply down-thread.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Piotr Berman

      Ginger outdid herself this time. One can argue that it was a minor incident (which it was, but unfortunately it is a symptom of a large pattern), but to argue that it did not happen is simply silly. So silly that one can trace how she could do it.

      I am not a familiar with development psychology, but my impression is that Ginger has mental age below 14.
      Basically, Ginger denies everything that she finds inconvenient. Literally, everything. No little games like conceding some obvious facts to build a clever argument.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        What an irrational, blind and chaotic outburst of emotions, anger and frustration that clearly must have built up over a lengthy period of time. Not even a very angry and upset pregnant woman can produce this kind of outburst, let alone an emotionally stable man. Gee, I must have bruised you badly in past arguments. I really hope you don’t explode! Now, make substantive, coherent legal arguments, or, get lost and take your filth with you!

        Reply to Comment
      • Gil Gamesh

        Actually I thought Ginger argued for her point quite well. Having nothing to counter this with Piotr you immediately give what you admit is your uneducated opinion of her mental age. That type of personal attack, in my educated opinion, is the sign that you, Piotr, have lost the argument.

        Reply to Comment
    8. Jan

      If one of my children had been taken in a police car to a police station and had been questioned and held for a few hours without my being present I would have considered what happened to have been either an arrest or detainment. Furthermore if my child had been asked to sign a “confession” in a language she didn’t understand I would think that is either immoral or a criminal act on the part of the questioning police.

      There was no need for these children to be taken to the police station. And, my dear, why wasn’t the accusing settler taken as well so that he could confront these girls with the horrible crime of having taken a few of his cherries?

      Ginger, I know from all your previous comments that you will stand by whatever Israel does no matter how heinous or how stupid. If the settler had shot one of the girls and the police took the other girls to the police station while letting the settler go I would not be at all surprised if you had stood by the police.

      Actually there is no need for you to reply to me or to two comments previous to mine because your comments will be just as stupid as the last one you made.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Ginger Eis

      @ Directrob,
      1. “Wiki” is not a source of law. Sources of law are (a) legislation/statutes/ordinances, (b) case law/jurisprudence, (c) general principles of law and (d) doctrine.
      2. Arrest procedure under Israeli law: the arresting-officer will first identify himself (also in accordance with the Police Ordinance) to the suspect, stating his name or his official designation and that he is a policeman, or a public servant, will inform him immediately that he is arrested and will – as soon as possible while executing the arrest – explain to him the reason for the arrest and a public servant will identify himself also by presentation of a certificate that attests to his authority; if the arrest is under a judge’s warrant, then the person who makes the arrest will give a copy of the warrant to the arrestee. NO “arrest” was made in the instant case.
      3. Under Israeli law, if you are suspected of involvement in a crime, e.g. theft as in the present case, and the police does not intend to arrest you, the police may (a) ask for your identification and question you on the spot or (b) invite you to come to the station at a later date for questioning. IF and ONLY IF (c) your identification is insufficient and/or (d) it is not possible to question you on the spot may the police ask you to accompany them to the station to determine your identity and get your version of the story. No one is EVER detained pre-trial for the crime he ALLEGEDLY committed, e.g. theft, because that’s a clear-cut violation of the principles of presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Furthermore, no one is EVER detained for eating anything, not even pork let alone cherries, (exception: cannibalism).
      4. Thus, the Palestinian juveniles in the present case were certainly NOT arrested and were definitely NOT detained for theft, let alone for eating cherries. A complaint of ongoing-theft was made against them, they had no (sufficient) identification on themselves and conditions on the ground made it impossible to get their version on the spot (privacy issues). They were accompanied by the police to the station to establish their identity and give their own version of the story – in accordance with the law! Nothing more. Nothing less. The +972 story remains FALSE!

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        Ginger, your definition of detained and arrest is not in line with the normal definition of detained and arrest. I have a feeling that the situation in Israel is the same given the text in the Hebrew wiki page.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest

        ARREST

        DEFINITION

        The use of legal authority to deprive someone of his or her freedom of movement.

        Hebrew Wiki:
        מעצר הוא כליאה המבוצעת על ידי שליחי השלטון, שאיננה מהווה ענישה

        translated with google translate:
        “Detention is confinement performed by government agents does not constitute punishment”

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Directrob, again, wiki is NOT a source of law. You need to start quoting the law and/or case law if you want me to continue take you as seriously as I have done so far. What I gave you is grosso modo THE TEXT (!) of the Israeli Criminal Procedure Law re arrest/detention. The procedures for arrest in the US and Israel are THE SAME with few un-substantive differences. In the US a suspect may be arrested (a) pursuant to warrant issued by a judge (b) by a police officer (including federal agents) if specific conditions are met, (c) by private citizens if specific conditions are met. Pursuant to Rule 4(3)(A) Of the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure “a warrant is executed by (a) arresting the defendant. Upon arrest, an officer possessing the original or a duplicate original warrant must show it to the defendant. If the officer does not possess the warrant, the officer must inform the defendant of the warrant’s existence and of the offense charged and, at the defendant’s request, must show the original or a duplicate original warrant to the defendant as soon as possible”. If the Officer arrests a suspect without a warrant, he shall also inform him that he is under arrest and the reason for the arrest during the very act of arrest. This is what is meant by: “The use of legal authority to deprive someone of his or her freedom of movement” (in the link you provided) and that is substantively THE SAME in Israel. There is no other way to make arrests except as prescribed by law. Lastly, I will once again refer you to points 3 and 4 of my first reply to you. They are very instructive and important to put stuff in perspective. The procedure I described there is EXACTLY the same in the US.

          Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            Ginger, in this case US law is very clear on de facto detention and de facto arrest.

            for arrest see (this points to high court cases that you can easily find and read):
            http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2003/08/point-of-law.aspx

            “But this much has been unambiguously declared at least four times, so it qualifies as a well-established point of law:If police take someone from one location and transport him or her involuntarily to a police facility for investigation, this will be considered a de facto arrest. Without probable cause, that arrest will be unlawful, with predictable consequences for both evidence suppression and civil liability.”

            The girls were arrested.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            You see, Directrob, in the cases in your link (and they are beautiful cases, thank you!), there was (1) no probable cause for arrest and (2) the transportation was involuntary. The equation that flows forth from there is thus: (a) if there is no probable cause and the transportation is involuntary, there is an arrest and said arrest is illegal; (b) if there is probable cause and the transportation is involuntary, there is an arrest and the arrest is legal; (c) if there is no probable and the transportation is voluntary, there is no arrest/detention; (d) if there is probable cause and the transportation is also voluntary, there is no arrest/detention. In the instant case the instant case the police did have probable cause that the juveniles committed a felony (felony). Based on said probable cause the police had the right to arrest them, but instead chose NOT to exercise that right (good police work). The police asked the juveniles to accompany them to the station to establish their identity and document their version of the story. The juveniles very wisely consented – without any threat of arrest made against them, and were voluntarily transported to the station. Thus no arrest was made and no one was detained within the meaning of the law/4th Amendment of the US Constitution (the ‘d-situation’ applies here). If police asks you to go with them to a police station, you can refuse unless they are arresting you (except if you are driving and they want to do a breath-analyzer/drug test). Always ask the reason they want you to go with them. If you do not refuse and just follow them, you acted voluntarily and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you refuse they will let you go if they have no probable cause or arrest you if they have probable cause.

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            Good try but no. Where the children free to continue their way? If no or if the felt no they were de facto arrested the moment they were led into the police car.

            Does not the article advice the policemen to invite the suspect to come voluntarily to the office with his own means of transport?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Directrob, these are the circumstance: (a) minors are involved; (b) there were many strangers around crowding the police and the minors; (c) some of the strangers were equipped with video cameras and they were photographing them and recording everything on camera; (d) the location is an open field; (e) the juveniles were anxious/upset (for being accused of theft) and had the natural inclination to deny the accusation and put truth on record (as everyone would); (e) no one wants to be filmed by strangers while he/she gives away his/her personal info, the personal info of his/her parents, answers questions about theft and possibly being arrested! So yes, any Judge in a juvenile Court will – absent evidence to the contrary – put it to you that given these specific circumstances of this specific case, the average juvenile would jump on the invitation to accompany the police to the station to tell his/her own truth and to keep that which is- and must remain private, private. This is called the “reasonable-man-test” which all Courts apply to make determinations in cases such as the present one. Sidebar: not knowing that you are free to walk away, thinking or feeling or assuming that you are not free to walk away even though NO threat of arrest was made are one and the same! The police is never obligated to tell you that you are free to walk away. The only way to find out if you are free to go is (1) ask if you are under arrest, or (2) tell the police ‘no’ I don’t want to go with you and/or (3) just start walking away.

            Reply to Comment
          • directrob

            Ginger I admire you perseverance but the police officer pushed/touched the kid into the car and the kids had to stay for two hours at the station. (That means arrest and that means arrest)

            By the way you changed your story, earlier you wrote:

            “A complaint of ongoing-theft was made against them, they had no (sufficient) identification on themselves and conditions on the ground made it impossible to get their version on the spot (privacy issues). They were accompanied by the police to the station to establish their identity and give their own version of the story – in accordance with the law! ”

            You now know that version means arrest (to clarify identification). Your new version is for me beyond what is reasonable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Directrob, I watched the same video and here is what I saw: (a) the beginning of the video was conveniently cut out and could contain very relevant info; (b) the girls freely walked towards the police car, while (c) the Officer was holding the crowd back and talking to the crowd; (d) the Officer then returned to the car while the girls waited in front of the car-door, (e) the Officer opened the car-door and started removing stuff from inside the car to create space for the girls (a further indication that the police had no prior-plan to drive anyone to the station); (e) after creating space in the car the Officer invited the girls to enter the car by touching the one in front to indicate he has finished removing stuff from the car and that it’s alright now for them to enter.

            Lastly, I did NOT change my story. Not at all. My last post was about how a juvenile/family Court Judge would rule in this case if the matter were presented before her with (a) the police claiming that the girls were transported voluntarily to the station and (b) the girls disputing that and claim otherwise. What would the Judge do in that scenario? The Judge will disregard the competing claims of the parties and apply the “reasonable-man-test” using the “specific circumstances” I enumerated to determine what must have happened. Those facts and circumstance put the police – absent evidence to the contrary – at a huge advantage, making it almost certain that the judge will rule against the girls.

            Reply to Comment
      • Jan

        Perhaps you were far too busy trying to defend the Israeli police to notice that I earlier wrote that there are two sets of laws in the Occupied Territories where the girls live.There is one set of laws for the settlers. Those laws are Israeli laws and apply within Israel and to the settlers in the Occupied Territories.

        The other set of laws are Military Laws and those are used in the Occupied Territories. Those laws are not the same as the laws used in Israel.

        Whether or not you want to admit it these girls were detained because a spiteful and nasty settler called the police. They were taken away in a police car to the police station. They were questioned in the absence of their parents or any legal representation. The were asked to sign a paper written in Hebrew, a language which they did not read.

        The girls did not ask to go to the police station. They were taken there. Even if they were there for 10 minutes they were being detained for 10 minutes. But they were detained for far longer than that.

        BTW, Ginger, hundreds, if not more,Palestinians are in Israeli prisons under what Israel calls “administrative detention.” These prisoners never received a trial, fair or otherwise, do not know the evidence against them, if there is any evidence. I would bet anything you would want to bet that the same system is not used against Israelis and the legalities that you described in your previous comment do not apply to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

        One piece of land. Two sets of laws. Sounds kind of like apartheid, don’t you think?

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Israel has not annexed Judea & Samaria. Non-Israelis living there are not Israeli citizens. The Military law applied by Israel in Judea & Samaria are (a) in many cases the same as the law applied within Israel proper (the present case is a good example. The police would not have treated Jewish- and/or Arab-Israeli juveniles differently if they were the ones involved in the present case and had no IDs on themselves while accusation of theft is brought forward against them!) and (b) more than meets International standards. Applying Israeli law to the whole of Judea & Samaria will amount to ANNEXATION, but I understand you and your ilk are AGAINST that too. Thus, if Israel applies Israeli law to the whole of Judea & Samaria, you cry foul. If Israel doesn’t, you also cry foul.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan, pls. see also points 3 and 4 of my first reply to ‘Directrob’(I don’t like reapeating myself over and over again). What I described there is ALSO the way it works in YOUR OWN country (!), the USA. Stop listening only to YOURSELF and ranting – blinded by uncontrollable emotions!

            Reply to Comment
          • Jan

            Ginger, it is way too late for a two state solution so perhaps Israel should annex all the West Bank, give the Palestinians the exact same rights as Jews and one person/one vote.

            How about that?

            And how about administrative detention that has been used for years against Palestinians who are held without charges and without trial. Is that how it is done in Israel? How many Israelis are in prison in Israel on administrative detention without being charged or tried? As bad as the US “justice” system is we don’t resort to that flagrant disregard of justice. I am waiting for you to either disregard what I wrote or to say it is FALSE when it is absolutely TRUE even if you don’t want to believe it.

            Finally, what is this business about carrying IDs? My kids never had IDs with them and I doubt that many American kids carry IDs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jan and Directrob, Administrative detention falls outside the criminal law and as such the Criminal Procedure Law does not apply. There are ALSO JEWS (the ones you guys like to call “settlers”) in administrative detention but no one is concerned for their plight! Anyways, Administrative detention is allowed under International law under the following conditions: (a) the security situation makes it absolutely necessary, such as in cases of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, (Art. 42 Fought Geneva Convention); (b) it is only used as a measure of last resort for the shortest period of time, (Article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child); (c) the detainee has a genuine right of appeal,(Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention); (d) the detention order is reviewed every six months and (e) the detainee is released with the minimum delay possible and in any event, as soon as the circumstances justifying the detention have ceased to exist, ( Article 75(3) of Additional Protocol 1 to the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Administrative detention in Israel meets the requirements of International law. Believe you me, NO ONE in Israel likes this Administrative detention stuff. But it Israel has to constantly balance the right to life of her citizens against the freedom of they who want to die and take as much innocent civilians as possible with them. Difficult choices have to be made and the right to life is always superior to every other right. The security situation is extremely difficult and Israel is doing her best, while not claiming to be perfect (no one is/can be).

            Reply to Comment
    10. Piotr Berman

      “The police asked the juveniles to accompany them to the station to establish their identity and document their version of the story. The juveniles very wisely consented – without any threat of arrest made against them, and were voluntarily transported to the station. ”

      Sounds reasonable? Really? For starters, why “establishing identity” requires a trip to a police station? What the hell it means to “document their version of events”? Leaving stool samples so they could be analyzed for cherry DNA? Who in sound mind would agree to such BS without coercion? Lack of resistance to military and police is not the same as agreement.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        This doesn’t worth my time and energy. Here is what you need to do: (a) get yourself together; (b) gather your thoughts together and then (c) make arguments by stating (c1) your position and (c2) the grounds/reasons upon which said position rests. It’s that simple. Right now you are still sounding freaky, incoherent and emotionally out of control. Oh boy….(!)

        Reply to Comment
        • Piotr Berman

          I have spelled out my position, namely that neither establishing identity nor presenting one’s version of events (“I did not do it”) does not require a visit to a police station taking many hours. Moreover, you claimed that the girls “consented”, and I did not find any support for that statement. I made a leap in my reasoning and I assumed that you have deduced “consent” from the lack of resistance, and perhaps from the fact that the girls were not manacled and hooded.

          You did not supply any support for your theory that the girls stay at the police station was voluntary. You did not address the fact that the governments recognize situations when a person has no choice (short of suicidal) but to comply as coercive, hence, resulting in detention. In fact, for all the length of your posts, you avoid a discussion on the specifics of the situation.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Mr. Berman, you are still not making a SINGLE argument which makes is hard to grant you the courtesy of a response. Here is why:
          1. “I have spelled out my position, namely that neither establishing identity nor presenting one’s version of events (“I did not do it”) does not require a visit to a police station taking many hours”: (a) The placement of the words “’neither’, ‘does’ and ‘not’” in the same sentence makes your claim incomprehensible. (b) How many minutes/hours is justified for arrival at the police station, establishing the ID of four minors and conducting a hearing of said minors, etc.? What is the basis for your answer(s)? (c) How and where should identity be established, by whom and on what basis? (d) Is it your position that when the police arrives at a crime scene all it has to do is only ask: ‘did you do it?’ and turn around and leave as soon as the questioned responds “I did not do it”? (d) Is it your position that children should be questioned in public, in an open farmland, while being crowded AND filmed by strangers in a chaotic atmosphere? (e) In your own country, Poland, ID-card is compulsory. If you are accused of theft in Poland, the police is called and arrives and you have no ID on yourself, what will the polish police do? If you are a juvenile of indictable age and you are accused of theft, the police arrives and you have no ID on you, how would the Polish police handle that in Poland?
          2. “Moreover, you claimed that the girls consented, and I did not find any support for that statement”. Read my exchanges with ‘Directrob’. I gave numerous reasons to support my claim – sometimes repeatedly! If you disagree, you need to say what exactly you disagree with and why.
          3. “Lack of resistance to military and police is not the same as agreement”: (a) How so? What then is “lack of resistance”? (b) What is “agreement”? (c) When is “agreement” present and how does it manifest itself? (d) When is disagreement present and how does it manifest itself?
          4. “In fact, for all the length of your posts, you avoid a discussion on the specifics of the situation”. (a) How so? Which “specifics of the situation” did I “avoid”? Pls. name a few of meant “specifics” and explain why they are relevant in your own view.
          5. “You did not address the fact that the governments recognize situations when a person has no choice (short of suicidal) but to comply as coercive, hence, resulting in detention”. In fact I DID! Again see my two last posts to ‘Directrob’ (the matter was dealt with extensively but you won’t notice that if you are angry, emotional and listening only to yourself. You just need to read, reflect and think hard, and after that say what you disagree with and why or ask question). Btw: (a) which “governments” are you talking about? (b) What exactly did those “governments recognize”, (c) can you provide your source? (d) Are the “governments” the instance that decides on what the law is, in your opinion? Do you see why it would be difficult for anyone to deal with all the ramblings you have been producing?

          Reply to Comment
          • lawrenceadickerson

            Ginger,you talk about the law in Israel which has two components,religious and judicial.You insist that others conform to your belief system when in fact we read every day that Israel ans it officials/agents are in violation of thier own Laws.

            In Israel it would appear that the statement used in the OJ Simpson trial,”If the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit”,but that would depend upon who was forcing on the glove and under what conditions.You want to have your glove fit perfectly but there are problems.Hasbara in it’s finest.

            Reply to Comment
    11. Piotr Berman

      I had once experience what does it mean “detained”. When I applied for American green card I had a bit of difficulty that I could not file my application on American territory while my Polish passport was expired. Thus it happened that I arrived at Montreal airport with that expired passport plus a document from American INS asking Canadians to admit me for a short period on “humanitarian” ground. When I showed those papers to passport control I was asked, politely! to go to a certain room, under an escort. Then for an hour I was answering some question while my interlocutor typed furiously. After an hour I got enormously long pink sheet of paper titled “Conditional release from detention of Canadian Immigration Service”.

      Thus an official of Canada informed me, with full authority, that I was detained. At no time I refused to cooperate, and the most coercive statement was “please go there”. In the same time, I was under total power of Canadians, so the situation was inherently coercive.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Baruch

      Anyone who denies fruit to a child is simply a monster. These “settlers” should be ashamed of themselves…if only they had the ability…psychopaths feel no shame.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Click here to load previous comments