Amnesty International: “Israeli attacks on Gaza Strip are war crimes”

Amnesty International, 30th June: “Deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes, Amnesty International said this weekend.

“’Israel must now take urgent measures to remedy the long-term damage it has caused and immediately restore the supply — at its own cost – of electricity and water to the Palestinian population in the affected areas,’ urged the organization. ‘As the occupying power, Israel is bound under international law to protect and safeguard the basic human rights of the Palestinian population.’

“The deliberate destruction of the Gaza Strip’s only electricity power station, water networks, bridges, roads and other infrastructure is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has major and long-term humanitarian consequences for the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.

“Almost half of Gaza’s inhabitants are now without electricity and water supplies have also been cut in several areas both by the lack of electricity, necessary to operate the water pumps used to extract and deliver water, and by the destruction of water mains as a result of the bombings of bridges and roads.

“The extensive damage caused by Israeli artillery and air strikes against these facilities in recent days is estimated at several millions of US dollars and will require months of work to repair. Unless alternative emergency measures are promptly put in place to restore electricity and water supply the consequences could be dire for the health of the Palestinian population.

“In a statement the Israeli army said that it had, ‘carried out an aerial attack on an electricity transformer station south of Gaza city…’ and that ‘The IDF will continue to employ all means at its disposal against Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip in order to ensure the quick and safe return home of Corporal Gilad Shalit.’

“The destruction by Israeli forces of bridges and roads is slowing down, but not preventing movement between different areas of the Gaza Strip. It is likely to cause severe restrictions on movement during the rainy season in a few months time. At present, it causes disruption to Palestinians civilians, who have to take long detours to reach their workplace, but it does not prevent the movements of armed groups – Israel’s stated objective.

“As the tension between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) and armed groups continues to mount, there is growing concern for the safety of the civilian population. High numbers of Palestinian bystanders, including women and children, have been killed and injured by Israeli artillery shelling and air strikes in recent weeks and months. This situation looks set to worsen in light of the end of the unilateral cease-fire which the armed wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups had been observing since last year.

“According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, ‘collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited’(Article 33) as is the destruction of private or public property, ‘except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations (Article 53).’ The Convention requires all states party to it to search for and ensure the prosecution of perpetrators of the war crime of ‘causing extensive destruction … not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.’

“‘Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects’ is also a war crime under Article 8 (b) (ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.’”

Ynet: “Toronto church to boycott Israeli goods”

Toronto Star reports United Church of Canada’s Toronto branch to unveil boycott of Israeli products, companies doing business with its military to end what it calls ‘illegal occupation of Palestinian lands’; plan calls on Ottawa to require that products originating in the occupied territories be labeled differently from those coming from the rest of Israel. Ynetnews

from Yedioth Ahronoth, 29th June 2006

The United Church of Canada’s Toronto branch was set to unveil Wednesday a boycott of Israeli products and companies doing business with its military to end what it calls the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, the Toronto Star reported.

The move comes on the heels of a similar controversial move by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which last month voted to support an international boycott campaign against Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinian refugees.

“We want to commend that position,” Frances Combs, co-chair of the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada’s task force on Israel was quoted by the Toronto Star as saying.

According to the report, the boycott is being undertaken only by the 300-church Toronto conference of the United Church, not the church as a whole.


‘We affirm the right of Israel to exist’

The Toronto Star said Combs’s task force was asked three years ago to devise a plan for implementing a resolution passed by the Toronto conference to pressure Israel to leave the occupied lands. That resolution has never been made public until now.

The plan will call on Ottawa to require that products originating in the occupied territories be labeled differently from those coming from the rest of Israel, the report said, adding that the group will then ask that occupied-territory products be boycotted by church members.

“This is not a boycott against Israel,” Combs told the Toronto Star, adding that only occupied-territory products are to be targeted. “We affirm the right of Israel to exist.”

According to the report, the group also wants the church and its members to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military, and will be pushing for the church as a whole to adopt similar measures at its general council meeting in Thunder Bay in August.

A 20-page resolution to be debated in Thunder Bay also calls on the church to invest in Palestinian companies, the Toronto Star said.
Bruce Gregersen, who heads international programs at the United Church’s national office, told the Toronto Star that the occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza since the Six Day War in 1967 has had a destabilizing effect on the entire region.

The church has few investments that would have to be sold off, Gregersen said, since it tends to avoid military suppliers. But a policy of targeting Palestinian companies for investment could have a positive impact on the lives of people in the occupied territories, he told the Toronto Star.

British Filmmaker’s Death in Gaza Continues to Resound

By Sarah Lyall
Published in the New York Times

LONDON, June 23 — Three years ago, in an incident that resonates now with the recent killing of seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, a documentary filmmaker was shot to death in Gaza.

Then as now, the victims’ families blamed the Israeli military, which denied responsibility. A major difference is that the filmmaker, James Miller, was a British citizen, and after some prodding from his family, his government has taken up his cause.

At first, about the only thing not in dispute in the Miller case was that he was dead, shot on May 2, 2003, in an area of the Gaza Strip thick with Israeli soldiers. The Israelis said he was a casualty of war. His colleagues said he had been killed in cold blood.

His family fought to know more.

A resolution of sorts came in April at a coroner’s inquest here into the death of Mr. Miller, 34, an experienced filmmaker looking into the effects of violence on children for HBO. The jury’s verdict was that he was murdered.

The killer was identified as the commander of an armored personnel carrier in the Israeli Army who had admitted firing his gun that night, but no one in Israel has been charged, and many of the questions raised in the hours after the shooting have never been resolved.

Suspecting that answers might not be forthcoming, the Miller family sent a private investigator to the scene the day after the killing to do forensic tests — tests, the investigator said, that the Israelis never conducted. In the next few days the army bulldozed the site, destroying much of the remaining evidence, the investigator said.

The Israeli military’s criminal investigation, including the basic task of confiscating and securing the soldiers’ weapons for tests, did not begin until several weeks after the fact.

Lt. Col. Jana Modzgvrishvily, the military advocate for the Israeli Army’s southern command, said in an interview that after Mr. Miller’s death, the army immediately began a standard field investigation, followed by a full military criminal investigation.

She said nine soldiers in the two armored personnel carriers near the scene were repeatedly interviewed and subjected to lie detector tests. She confirmed that the weapons had not been secured for three weeks but said they had been subjected to extensive forensic tests.

It is not just the Miller family who denies that the Israeli inquiry was thorough and comprehensive. So, too, does the coroner at the London inquest, who urged the British government to begin an international prosecution against the commander of the personnel carrier under the Geneva Conventions. So does the British government itself.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, raised the case last month with Israeli officials, including the defense and justice ministers. He also brought up another case, that of Tom Hurndall, 22, a British antiwar protester who was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier in February 2003, three weeks before and a mile away from where Mr. Miller died.

In Mr. Hurndall’s case, the soldier, Sgt. Taysir Hayb, is serving an eight-year sentence for manslaughter. Lord Goldsmith said he needed “to consider myself whether there ought to be prosecutions here in either of these cases.” He said he did not want to raise expectations but was keeping an open mind.

Speaking of the Miller case, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office, asking that his name not be used in accordance with government policy, said: “We have pressed the Israelis at every level, and at every stage, to agree to a full and transparent investigation. We are disappointed that the investigation wasn’t carried out properly and hasn’t resulted in an indictment, and that the I.D.F. has decided not to discipline the person alleged to have shot James Miller.” The initials stand for the Israeli military’s official name, the Israeli Defense Forces.

Accounts of what happened diverged almost from the moment Mr. Miller was shot.

It was late at night in the ruined town of Rafah, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip, and Mr. Miller was concluding his third visit for the film.

He specialized in documentaries about the downtrodden and the oppressed; his past work included “Beneath the Veil” (2001), about the war in Afghanistan, which won Emmy and Peabody awards; “Children of the Secret State” (2000), about famine in North Korea; and “Armenia: The Betrayed” (2002), about the massacres of Armenians in 1915.

Mr. Miller and his colleagues had spent the evening at a Palestinian house, filming Israeli bulldozers knocking down Palestinian buildings.

Two Israeli armored personnel carriers were in the area, investigating reports that a Palestinian tunnel under the Egyptian border was being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza.

The vehicles were fired on during the day, and the soldiers responded in kind. By 11 p.m. or so, things were quiet. The filmmakers decided to call it a night.

Wearing flak jackets and hats marked “TV,” waving a white cloth in the air that they illuminated with a flashlight and shouting that they were British journalists seeking to leave the area safely, Mr. Miller and two colleagues, Saira Shah and Abdul Rahman Abdullah, slowly walked toward one of the armored personnel carriers. But suddenly, according to Ms. Shah and Mr. Abdallah, a shot rang out close by.

A warning, they said they thought. They dropped to the ground. Thirteen seconds passed. Then there was a second shot. It hit Mr. Miller.

He lost consciousness almost immediately and was pronounced dead at an Israeli base. His wife, Sophy, at home with their children, then 3 and 1, and expecting her husband the next day, woke up to a phone call from a distraught Ms. Shah.

Soon it was all over the news. But while Mr. Miller’s colleagues said he had been shot in the front of the neck from the direction of one of the Israeli vehicles, the Israelis initially gave a different account. Mr. Miller walked into an exchange of gunfire, they said, and was hit in the back by a Palestinian bullet.

The next day, the Miller family dispatched Chris Cobb-Smith, a security expert and British Army veteran, to Gaza to investigate.

“The emphasis had to be on us to do the proper investigations, because it was obvious that the I.D.F. was not going to conduct their investigation with any impartiality,” said Mr. Cobb-Smith, whose examination of footprints, tank tracks and traces of blood and bullet holes, among other things, led him to conclude that the shot that had killed Mr. Miller had come from an Israeli vehicle.

He said no one from the Israeli Army had interviewed him about his findings. One of the most important pieces of evidence was a grainy video taken by an Associated Press Television News cameraman from the balcony of the building that Mr. Miller had just left. Seven intermittent shots can be clearly heard on the audio, 13 seconds apart, then 12, then 5, then 15, then 5, then 12.

“These shots were not fired by a soldier in response to incoming fire,” Mr. Cobb-Smith said. “They were slow and calculated and deliberate.” He added, “I have no doubt that it was cold-blooded murder.”

Interviewed at home in rural Braunton, Devon, Mrs. Miller said her husband had worked in hostile environments for 14 years and was known for his extreme caution. She says she has fought so hard not just for her husband, but because she is disturbed at what she sees as the lack of accountability in the Israeli Army in this and other cases.

The Israelis now agree that Mr. Miller was indeed shot in the neck, from the front. But they say there is no evidence that M-16 bullet fragments recovered from his body match the guns of any Israeli soldiers in the area.

And after analyzing the audiotape of the gunfire, an Israeli expert concluded that the first two shots had come from “an urban area” — from the direction of populated Rafah — rather than the Israeli vehicles. Mr. Miller was killed by the second shot.

“The evidence from the military investigation concluded that there was no involvement of I.D.F. soldiers in the killing of James Miller,” Colonel Modzgvrishvily said. “When talking about the death of innocent civilians it is of course very tragic, but unfortunately it is the nature of war.”

Freddy Mead, a British ballistics expert sent by the family, likewise could not link the bullet that killed Mr. Miller to any particular weapon. But Mr. Cobb-Smith said that conclusion was meaningless because of the delay in seizing the soldiers’ weapons and the lack of a credible chain of evidence in the investigation.

The army’s 94-page report shows that the investigation focused almost immediately on the commander of one of the Israeli personnel carriers, the only one who fired his weapon around the time Mr. Miller died.

But although the commander, identified in the report as First Lt. H., gave conflicting accounts in six separate interviews of when and why he had fired, he was adamant — as was every other soldier — that they could neither see nor hear the Britons approaching.

Mr. Miller’s colleagues disputed that, saying the soldiers knew they had been filming from the balcony and had taunted them from their vehicles. The evening was clear, they said; the soldiers had night-vision equipment.

The military’s judge advocate general recommended that the commander, who has since been identified by the Miller family as First Lt. Hib al-Heib, be disciplined for improperly using his weapon. But the recommendation was rejected.

The London inquest, held as is the custom in Britain when a citizen dies in violent circumstances abroad, took place this spring. The coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, criticized Israel for not participating and joined Mr. Miller’s family in calling for the British government to consider an international prosecution of the Israeli soldier. The Millers have filed a civil suit in Israel.

Anne Waddington, Mr. Miller’s older sister, said that while the jury’s conclusion was reassuring, it was not enough.

“We’ve struggled for three years to put the pieces of this tragic jigsaw together,” she said in an interview. “We have all pursued justice all of our lives, and James was the biggest and best of all in doing that. For the circumstances of his death to be treated with such disdain by the Israelis is something we cannot forgive.”

After Mr. Miller died, his colleagues finished the film, with an ending he had never envisioned: his own killing. Its title was “Death in Gaza,” and it won a host of awards, including three Emmys.

LA Times: “Questions Arise Over Case Against Islamic Charity”

By Greg Krikorian, LA Times Staff Writer, June 18, 2006

DALLAS — The Justice Department’s criminal case against officials of the largest U.S.-based Islamic charity relies more heavily than previously known on Israeli intelligence, court records show.

President Bush ordered the charity shut down in December 2001, declaring from the Rose Garden that the Holy Land Foundation was raising money in the U.S. that “pays for murder abroad” by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

However, the pending criminal case will place a higher burden of proof on the claims than required for the president’s executive action. And questions about the credibility of Israeli intelligence are raising fresh doubts about the Justice Department’s case.

Disputes already have surfaced over assertions of political influence, interrogation methods and allegedly faulty translations.

Federal prosecutors, accusing charity officials of aiding terrorists, have disclosed receiving 21 binders of documents from the Israeli government, according to records originally sealed by the court. The binders contain an estimated 8,000 pages that, in sheer volume, dwarf earlier shared intelligence — including Israeli military and police reports, translated interrogation transcripts and financial analyses.

Previous intelligence from Israel was a factor in 2001 when the White House, with great fanfare, froze assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, based in Richardson, Texas.

Those claims, however, were never subjected to the kind of rigorous legal challenge expected in a criminal trial.

Seven former Holy Land officials, six of them American citizens, are charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, sending money, goods and services to terrorists through Palestinian organizations controlled by Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group since 1995.

They have denied assisting Hamas.

The case figures to hinge on the government’s ability to prove, largely with Israeli-provided information, that the defendants knowingly supported groups tied to Hamas. Israel’s prominent investigative role appears to be unprecedented in post-Sept. 11 terrorism cases.

Defense lawyers already have argued that allegations against Holy Land are unwarranted and influenced by political pressure from Tel Aviv. Bush’s presidential order closing down the charity came on the eve of a White House visit by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The case also is being questioned by outside lawyers and legal scholars, warning that the government’s heavy reliance on foreign-sourced intelligence could be a problem for prosecutors. Significant legal challenges are predicted over differing evidence-gathering techniques, language barriers and alleged investigative bias.

“What really makes me nervous is the foreign translations,” said Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing, a former deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration. “Nuances are important in languages, so things can get lost in translations.”

Toensing said dependence on another country’s evidence in a criminal case was fraught with potential problems. “I would only want it as frosting on the cake,” said the former prosecutor, who said she had not reviewed the Holy Land case.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley added that long-standing tensions between Israel and Hamas could taint the evidence.

“It is always dangerous to rely on intelligence from [a country] that is at ground zero in a dispute,” he said.

Turley also called the case “one of the most troubling since 9/11,” in part because the original action shutting down the charity required no evidentiary hearings to prove any of the alleged terrorist ties.

Federal prosecutors would not discuss the case.

Israeli Embassy officials declined to comment.

Defense lawyers, who would not discuss evidence in the case, served notice that they intended to challenge the origins and credibility of Israeli information.

“There are going to be serious issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence,” said Nancy Hollander, a lawyer representing Shukri Abu Baker, the charity’s former president and chief executive.

John Boyd, representing the Holy Land Foundation, criticized the role of Israel and said, “American citizens are being prosecuted at the behest of Israel and face many years in prison based on evidence supplied by Israel.”
Contents of the evidence binders provided by Israel have not been disclosed, but court records make clear that they are considered sensitive.

During one hearing, for example, prosecutors revealed that the Israeli government retained control over what specific intelligence materials the U.S. could use publicly. And Justice Department lawyers traveled to Israel this year to negotiate what could be disclosed in court, prosecutors acknowledged.

The case already was complicated by reliance on classified information developed by U.S. intelligence sources. Earlier this year, the government’s case was stung by the unintended release of some of those classified documents to defense lawyers. A bid by prosecutors to compel return of those records was rejected by a federal judge.

The degree of secrecy surrounding prosecution of Holy Land makes it difficult to assess the strength of the government’s case.

Court records available to the public show that Israeli intelligence is central to a claim that the charity specifically earmarked money for the families of suicide bombers. That allegation was based on records seized in an Israeli raid on Holy Land’s Jerusalem offices a decade ago.

U.S. prosecutors allege that Holy Land officials dispensing aid favored the relatives of terrorists. Such a practice “effectively rewarded past, and encouraged future, suicide bombings and terrorist activities” by Hamas, according to the federal indictment.

The Justice Department also accused the charity of supporting terrorists by helping zakat committees, the Muslim equivalent of grass-roots social-welfare programs.

Attorney Boyd said Holy Land was never warned of such terrorist ties.

“Our government maintains a very long list of people and organizations that are affiliated with terrorism, and none of the organizations that the Holy Land Foundation is accused of working with has ever been on that list,” Boyd said.

Holy Land’s charitable gifts, transferred in the form of international wire transactions, records show, are part of the evidence acquired by federal investigators. However, allegations that the recipients have links to Hamas appear to rely heavily on information provided by Israel.

Some of the potential prosecution problems with the Israeli intelligence are reflected in earlier court filings.

For example, an FBI memo noted that a Jerusalem office manager for Holy Land supposedly told Israeli authorities that charity “was channeled to Hamas.”

But defense lawyers countered that the translation from Arabic to Hebrew to English distorted the official’s statement and that he should have been quoted as saying, “We have no connection to Hamas.”

Attorneys have disputed other interrogation translations as well. But the most intriguing disagreement may center on the meaning of a single word: “martyr.”

Among documents cited by the government is an “orphans book” seized by FBI agents from Holy Land’s headquarters here. It includes the photos of about 400 Palestinian youths, most of them in Gaza, who received financial aid from the foundation.

A review by The Times found that 69 of the youths were listed as the sons and daughters of “martyrs.”

In much of the West, the term has come to be synonymous with suicide bombers. But others, including Holy Land defenders and Middle East scholars, say “martyr” can be applied to rather common accidents and incidents.

In a sworn statement, the former head of Holy Land’s Gaza office, Mohammed Abumoharram, said social workers who interviewed all the families of the so-called martyrs found that four died making bombs and a dozen others were killed in clashes with Israeli troops. However, he said in his statement, others included victims of a robbery, a heart attack, a prison fight, a car accident and a stray bullet.

Most strikingly, eight of the so-called martyrs reportedly were suspected Israeli collaborators, killed by fellow Palestinians for helping Israel.

“What I can say without any question is that there are many orphans whose fathers are called ‘martyr’ who were not guilty of any acts of terrorism on behalf of Hamas or anyone else,” he said.

Israel’s involvement in the case was first noted by the original federal judge considering Holy Land’s appeal of its shutdown. In a July 2002 hearing, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler asked a federal prosecutor how much of the government’s large administrative record came from the Israeli government.

The government lawyer said it would be “difficult” to quantify, but she acknowledged that “an abundance of intelligence” came from the Israeli government.

Such reliance on a foreign intelligence agency poses other obstacles in U.S. criminal court proceedings.

For example, who is likely to testify to validate the intelligence data as evidence?

“If you are talking about Israeli intelligence officials testifying or providing information, then you have serious hearsay problems, serious bias problems,” said Georgetown University law professor David Cole.

“And I think it could be very questionable as to whether that evidence could be introduced.”

Counterpunch: “For Arabs Only – Israeli Law and Order”

By JONATHAN COOK

Imagine the following scenario. A Palestinian gunman boards a bus inside Israel and rides it to the city of Netanya. Close to the end of the line, he walks over to the driver, levels his automatic rifle against the man’s head and pumps him with bullets. He turns and empties the rest of the magazine — one of 14 in his backpack — into the passenger behind the driver and two young women sitting across the gangway.

As bystanders in the street outside look on in horror, our gunman then reloads his weapon and sprays the bus with yet more fire, injuring 20 people. He approaches a woman huddled beneath a seat, trying to hide from him, lowers the gun to her head and pulls the trigger. The magazine is empty. As he tries to load a third clip, she grabs the burning barrel of the gun while other passengers rush him.

Seeing their chance, the onlookers storm the bus and fuelled by a mixture of passions — fury, indignation and fear of further attack — they beat the gunman to death.

As the news breaks, Israeli TV prefers to continue its coverage of a local football match rather report the killings. Later, when the channels do cover the deaths, they start by showing the picture of the gunman with the caption “God bless his soul” — in the same manner as they would normally relate to the victim of a terror attack.

Despite the Prime Minister denouncing the gunman as a terrorist to the world, domestically the media and police concentrate instead on the “lynch mob” who killed the gunman. The police launch a secretive investigation which after 10 months leads to the arrests of seven men on charges of murdering him, and the promise of more arrests to come. A police spokesman describes the men’s act against the gunman as one of “cold-blooded murder”.

Fanciful? Ridiculous? Well, exactly these events have unfolded in Israel over the past year — except that the location was not the Jewish city of Nentanya but the Arab town of Shafa’amr in the Galilee; the gunman was not a Palestinian but an Israeli soldier using his army-issue M-16; and the victims were not Israeli Jews but Israeli Arabs.

See how it now starts to make sense.

The killing of four Palestian citzens of Israel by the 19-year-old soldier Eden Natan Zada on 4 August last year, shortly before the disengagement from Gaza, has been quietly forgotten by the world. After the Arab victims were buried, the only question that concerned Israelis was who killed Zada. Yesterday they appeared to get their answer: seven men from Shafa’amr were rounded up by Israeli police to stand trial for his “cold-blooded” murder.

No one was interested in the official neglect of the families of Shafa’amr’s dead, all of whom were denied the large compensation payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian terror. A ministerial committee ruled that, because Zada was a serving soldier, his attack could not be considered a terrorist incident. Apparently only Arabs can be terrorists. To this day the state has not given the families a penny of the compensation automatically awarded to Jewish families.

There was no investigation of why Zada, well-known for his extremist views, had been allowed to go AWOL for weeks from his unit without attempts to trace him. Or how his family’s repeated warnings that he had threatened to do something “terrible” to stop the disengagement had been ignored by the authorities. No one questioned why, a few days before his attack, the police had sent Zada away after he tried to hand in his gun.

Even more disturbingly, no one discussed why Zada, who openly belonged to a racist and outlawed movement, Kach, which demands the expulsion, if not eradication, of Arabs from the Holy Land, had been allowed to serve in the army. How had he and thousands of other Kach supporters been left in peace to promote their obscene ideas? Why were these Kach activists, mostly young Israelis, demonstrating openly against the Gaza disengagement, assaulting policemen and soldiers, when the group was supposedly underground?

And why did the authorities not round up and question Zada’s Kach friends in his West Bank settlement of Tapuah after the attack? Why was their possible involvement in its planning never considered, nor their role in inciting him to his deed?

The point was that the Israeli authorities wanted Zada to be dismissed as a lone, crazy gunman — like Baruch Goldstein before him, the army doctor who in 1994 opened fire in the Palestinian city of Hebron, killing 29 Muslim worshippers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs and wounding 125 others.

Although Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister then, denounced Goldstein as an “errant weed”, a shrine and park was built for him nearby, in the settlement of Kiryat Arba, venerating him as a “saint” and “a righteous and holy man”. Far from being isolated, his shrine regularly attracts thousands of Israeli Jews who congregate deep in Palestinian territority to honour him.

Instead of seeking out and eradicating this growing strain of Jewish fundamentalism in the wake of the Shafa’amr terror attack, Israel claimed that finding and punishing the men who killed Zada was the priority. It was a matter of law and order, said Dan Ronen, the police force’s northern commander. He told the Hebrew media: “In a country with law and order, despite the sensitivity, people can’t do whatever they see fit. I hope the Arab sector will display maturity and responsibility.”

This sounds like an outrageous double standard to the citizens of Shafa’amr, and to the country’s more than one million Palestinian citizens. Enforcing the law has never been a major consideration when the offenders are Jewish and the victims are Arabs, even when the killings occur inside Israel.

Arab citizens have not forgotten the massacre of 49 men, women and children by a unit of soldiers who enforced a last-minute curfew on the Israeli village of Kfar Qassem in 1956, executing the villagers — Arabs, of course — at the checkpoint one by one as they innocently returned home from a day’s work in the fields.

During their trial, the Haaretz newspaper reported that the soldiers received a 50 per cent pay increase and that it was obvious the men were “not treated as criminals but as heroes”. Found guilty of an “administrative error”, the commander was given a one penny fine.

Nor was anyone held to account when six unarmed Arab citizens were shot dead by the security services in the Galilean town of Sakhnin in 1976 as they protested against another wave of land confiscations that deprived rural Arab communities of their farm land. The prime minister of the day, Rabin again, refused even to launch an investigation.

Some 25 years later, an inquiry was held into the killing by the police of 13 unarmed Arabs in the Galilee in October 2000 as they protested the deaths of Palestinians at the Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem — the trigger for the intifada. Six years on, however, not a single policeman has been charged over the deaths inside Israel. Even the commanders who illegally authorised the use of an anti-terror sniper unit against demonstrators armed only with stones have not been punished.

Israel’s Arab citizens are also more than familiar with the story of the “Bus 300 affair” of 1984, when two Palestinian gunmen from the occupied territories were captured after hijacking a bus inside Israel. Led away in handcuffs by the Shin Bet security service, the two men were later reported dead.

No one was ever charged over the killings, even though it was widely known at the time who had killed the men and later one senior Shin Bet operative, Ehud Yatom, admitted breaking the men’s skulls with a rock. In 1986, to forestall the threat of any indictments, the president of the day, Chaim Herzog, gave all the Shin Bet agents involved an amnesty from prosecution.

If it is shown in court that Zada was in fact beaten to death after the crowd knew he had been restrained, then this history — of the state’s repeated denial of justice to the Arab victims of its violence — must be taken into account. No one can reasonably have expected the onlookers to stay calm knowing that Zada, like other Jewish emissaries of the state before him, would receive either no punishment or a few years of jail and a pardon because he killed Arabs rather than Jews.

Israel has shown time and again that it selectively enforces law and order, depending on the ethnicity of killer and victim.

Commander Ronen observed at a press conference after the Shafa’amr arrests: “Since October 2000 we have come a long way in our relations with the Arab sector.” If that is true, which is doubtful, the authorites have again made every effort to tear apart what little is left of that trust.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming ” Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net