Original subtitles

Can we place the chair already?

This is the beginning of a documentary film.

It's worth taking a moment to reflect on the term "documentary film."

The common understanding is that a documentary depicts reality

unlike a narrative film which tells a fictional story.

- Like that? - Yes, let me see? Okay.

This definition may be true, but it's not precise enough.

Press "Play."

In the film, I will document a legal system.

A system which organizes the rule-of-law

in the territories we conquered in 1967.

This is a unique system. Very few people understand it in depth.

It's also worth taking a moment to reflect on the term "law."

A common definition is that the law is a collection of rules

that organize life in a particular place and define the rights and obligations

that exist between individuals, and between individuals and the authorities.

The law that organizes people's lives is entrusted to certain people.

People like the protagonists of this film. They are legal professionals.

All were members of the Israeli military legal corps.

These legal professionals, and many others, are the people who wrote,

developed and implemented the law in the occupied territories.

What's he getting over there?

Another angle.

A legal professional's work is hidden by its very nature,

it's carried out in a language most of us do not understand.

The film's protagonists' work remained

behind the scenes of familiar historical events,

and, in my opinion, never received the exposure it deserved.

Their work was never filmed,

but is documented in hundreds of thousands of pages:

military orders, legal opinions,

and court rulings that tell the story of the law.

Here is "Proclamation Number One"

declaring that the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, have entered the region,

and demanding that the law be obeyed.

When was it prepared?

This declaration was prepared in hundreds of copies,

years before the Six-Day War,

and stored in the legal advisors'

emergency cases,

without knowing if and when the IDF would even conquer territories.

The story of the law in the territories actually begins before 1967.

Years before the war, IDF legal corps officers studied international law,

the laws of war, and regulations of occupation of enemy territory.

In those years, the Military Advocate General, Meir Shamgar,

wrote the "Guide for the Military Advocate in Occupied Territory,"

a booklet containing all information a military legal professional would need,

should the IDF ever occupy territory in a neighboring country.

This here is about

the protected status of hospitals,

in the Hague Regulations, the Geneva Conventions,

Greenspan's book, the British Guide.

The emergency war gear included documents

notifying an occupied population

of the basic principles of the new law they would be subject to,

just as the Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention dictate.

If I live in Nablus, let's say, I'm not a lawyer, just an ordinary citizen.

It's June 1967 and I find this order, which you also issued in Arabic,

stuck to the door of my shop. What am I supposed to make of it?

We're informing you that life is different now.

There's a new government in the region, run by the IDF,

and what the IDF says goes.

There is no situation of...

Chaos or absence of norms.

You'll continue to live by the norms you've lived by,

as long as there are no orders issued by the regional commander.

If the regional commander issues new orders, you must obey them.

I.D. CARD ISSUING STATION

The law, which is in the hands of people, is applied on other people.

Overnight, about a million people, residents of the occupied territories,

became subject to the new legal system.

According to international law,

an occupying army is responsible for the order and welfare

of the residents of the occupied area.

The military legal men were determined to uphold these responsibilities.

During the first year, they formulated hundreds of orders

updating the law in every instance of uncertainty or misunderstanding.

Tax liabilities, postal services, telecommunication,

motor vehicle insurance, third-party liability.

It became necessary to supervise the content of textbooks.

To determine that the Israeli Pound is legal tender,

to set the exchange rate,

to oversee and protect the property of the occupied state.

To protect archeological sites, enable freedom of worship in holy places.

We needed to formulate, print, and publish all these things,

because they were part of the machinery, the mechanism that was to move...

To bring life back to its normal course, not to let life stop.

The local residents learn the law not through reading the orders issued,

but through contact with the new authorities.

Over the course of half a century they were subject toOttoman rule,

then British, then Jordanian or Egyptian.

Now they find themselves under the temporary rule

of the Israeli military commander.

An order issued by

the regional commander is a law!

Any resident must obey it without objection.

And if he doesn't obey?

He can be brought to trial before a military court,

or before a local court depending on the issue.

How long did the issuing of these orders go on?

It's going on to this very day.

I ask myself, why not just apply Israeli law?

Wouldn't that be easier than passing hundreds of new laws?

Why not simply apply our legal system?

If you apply Israeli law,

you imply certain things you may not want.

One of them, for instance, is that you intend to annex the region.

Secondly,

you automatically obligate yourself

to grant citizenship to the entire population.

Because if you apply the law, they become citizens...

They should become Israeli citizens.

You cannot apply law on the land and not on the people.

In the guide you wrote before the war, you called it "occupied territory."

But a few months after the war, the definition changes to "held" territory.

Why this change?

I remember talking about

"held territory" fairly early on.

Because when you say "occupied" or "occupation,"

you can give it a more subtle interpretation, for example,

"I'm occupying an apartment on Dizengoff Street."

I'm holding onto an apartment on Dizengoff Street.

Or you can say "I'm occupying territory,"

"I'm administering occupied territory."

In truth, legally speaking, it's the laws of occupied territory.

The people subject to the law will be represented in the film

by images from documentaries made over the last 40 years,

mostly by Israeli filmmakers, like me.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan visited the beach.

He came to meet the residents of "the territories" who spend time there.

The minister spoke with the Arabs at the beach.

He asked where they're from, and what they do.

Many defendants are tried in the military courts in Gaza

and many judgments are issued every day.

In films like these, the person documenting presents facts and context.

The subject is filmed as himself.

And the viewer judges reality as it is presented.

The "Security Regulations Order" establishes military courts in the area.

The order states that the judges should be three IDFofficers,

at least one of whom has studied law.

The prosecutor is anyone appointed by the military commander.

The defendant may be represented by an attorney of his choice.

The proceedings will take place in Hebrew,

but there will be a soldier present who can translate the proceedings intoArabic.

The proceedings will be transcribed.

Hundreds of thousands of court minutes are preserved in military archives.

Indictments, arguments, and judgments tell the history of the relationship

between the Palestinian residents and the law they were subject to.

I arrived in Judea and Samaria in 1967.

I was the chief prosecutor,

I appeared in courts in Nablus,

Ramallah, Tulkarem, Hebron, Jenin, Gaza...

At first they were in a state of shock.

They didn't understand what had happened.

It took them 6 to 12 months to realize things aren't so bad,

and in some respects it's better than it was before.

What kind of cases did you prosecute?

At first, mostly demonstrations. Mass protests,

derogatory chants, incitement, violence,

attempts to attack government institutions.

That was the beginning. Later, things started to get serious.

I want to talk about the precedent-setting case you mentioned in our meeting.

Case no. 4 from 1969.

The military prosecutor, you, that is,

vs. Omar Mahmoud Qassem and eight others.

The military court in Ramallah is the site for the trial of

a large band of "Fatah" members. They were captured with explosives,

intended for bombing the international airport last year.

The Israeli soldiers who testified in the trial, relayed how they were flown in by helicopter

to apprehend a group who had infiltrated the border from Jordan.

The infiltrators were armed and a firefight broke out.

Eight of the infiltrators surrendered and were captured.

As the trial began, the group's commander spoke to the court,

"I was born in Jerusalem," he says, "and left the country after the war.

"I am certain that this land is my land."

The documents in the file reveal that Omar Qassem left the country in 1967,

in a period when many people left the area out of fear of what might come.

In Jordan, he joined The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,

and was sent, like hundreds of others, to infiltrate the occupied areas,

to attack Israeli targets and help spark an armed uprising in the region.

In court, Qassem claims that he is a soldier who fought against soldiers,

that he is not willing to stand trial as a felon.

The claim that these were POWs was also raised in the U.N.

by Arab delegates

who claimed that some of these people are POWs

and that Israel is violating the Geneva Conventions.

We wanted to address this issue so that this claim could not be used,

in the U.N. or by the Arab states.

After the trial, the foreign ministry translated the judgment

and distributed it to all U.N. member nations,

to prove that the issue had been addressed,

and one can analyze it, from a legal perspective,

and determine that they do not merit POW status.

The Palestinian nationals train in special military camps.

So that the entire Palestinian people can take part in the next war.

Today the differentiation between a soldier and a terrorist

is deeply rooted in our legal and political discourse.

But at the end of the 1960s

it was necessary to cement this distinction in the law.

The Omar Qassem judgment is one of the first legal texts

that contends with the legitimacy of Palestinian struggle against Israel.

In his ruling, Judge Abulafia writes that the Geneva Convention

indeed grants special status to lawful combatants,

which can include members of liberation organizations.

Tobe granted such status, explains the judge,

combatants must meet Geneva Convention requirements,

most importantly, to do battle according to the international laws of warfare.

The defendant's organization, writes the judge,

is not an organization that upholds the laws of war.

Their attacks on innocent civilians in the Jerusalem Market

and the Tel Aviv bus terminal are clear proof of this.

Members of such an organization

have no right to claim the status of "lawful combatant."

International law was not written in order to protect terrorists and criminals.

All of the defendants received life sentences for armed infiltration,

possession of firearms, and membership in an illegal organization.

In terms of legal status, what's the difference between them and us?

Our soldiers, I mean.

They don't honor the laws and customs of warfare.

- They themselves? - They themselves and the...

But this group, though they were armed,

they didn't harm civilians. They fought against soldiers.

How do they not fulfill the Geneva conditions?

They belong to a terrorist organization that does not honor the laws of warfare.

It attacks civilian targets.

Anyone who violates this basic distinction

between attacking combatants and non-combatants,

immediately violates the laws of warfare.

Right.

Regarding the question of who was prosecuted,

I'd like to discuss another case.

It also involves infiltration,

but in this case a woman stands trial, a mother of five.

She's tried for giving food,

bread and sardines according to the indictment,

to a group of infiltrators who hid in the caves near her village, Beit Fajjar.

Case 2046 in 1976, the military prosecutor vs. Arifa Ibrahim.

According to her statement, Arifa met a woman in the marketplace who told her

a certain man requested she meet him in the vineyards outside the village the next day.

Arifa understood this man had come from Jordan illegally,

and was hiding from the authorities.

She thought he might be hungry and thirsty.

She brought pita bread and sardines to their meeting.

Arifa continued bringing food for the man and three others who were with him

for two more weeks.

After a while, she was arrested and brought to trial.

How did the government find out about the pita?

You don't have to worry about that.

The walls have ears.

There are informants.

Word gets round to the General Security Service

and they inform the military prosecution.

An indictment is written up, and the woman is brought in

for aiding an armed infiltrator,

in violation of the Order for Prevention of Infiltration.

Arifa Ibrahim's defense attorney claims she shouldn't be punished

for feeding a person who asked for help,

even if he is an infiltrator wanted by the authorities.

Because giving food to a person in need is universally accepted human behavior.

Justice Orr does not accept the defense's argument. In his ruling he writes

that the terrorists are like venomous snakes.

The "human values" mentioned by the defense attorney do not apply to them.

The judge asserts that punishing the infiltrators themselves is not sufficient,

"We have to make the residents understand that infiltrators must not be aided.

"The only way to reach this result is to make the local population feel

"that aiding these people is dangerous."

Therefore, he sentences the defendant to a year and a half in prison.

The point of this sentence is to deter.

Or what we would call, "teaching them a lesson."

But if I think of this sentence in comparison to a trial in Israel,

I wonder how much justice was done here in this judgment?

Since the court, even a military court, is the vessel through which

a ruling power does justice with its subjects.

First it creates order with the people and gets the population under its control.

Order and justice don't always go hand in hand.

Justice demands that I, the person documenting this case,

interview the defendant, Arifa Ibrahim.

What does she remember of the trial?

Why didn't she say anything throughout it?

The minutes state you were a widow. Who did your children stay with?

If you knew there was a risk, why did you keep bringing him food?

Did your punishment deter others from contact with the resistance organizations?

It turns out that Arifa Ibrahim still lives in Beit Fajjar.

Justice demands that I interview her

rather than make due with quotes from her trial,

read over images of other Palestinian women from the same period.

But I do not intend to interview her.

Because this film is not about the people who broke the law,

but about those entrusted with the law.

Will you tell me when we're starting?

Yes, I'll ask you questions based on what we talked about,

and what I've read.

Excuse me if I interrupt you sometimes when something sounds too "legalistic,"

and people might not understand it.

Or if I want to guide the conversation in another direction.

It's not a problem because we'll edit it afterwards.

The settlement of Kiryat Arba after the murder.

A group of young people, members of the ultra-nationalist "Kach" organization,

have come to attend the funeral of one of the central members of their group.

Hundreds of soldiers protected the mass funeral procession,

which passed the Tomb of the Patriarchs and continued

to the site of the murder at "Hadassah House."

On the second of May, the defendants caused the death of six Jews

and wounded 16others near Hadassah House in Hebron.

The cell leader, Adnan Jabber, was trained in Syria and Russia.

He infiltrated in order to perpetrate an attack on Jewish settlers.

Presiding Judge, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Ramati,

asked whether the defendants understood the charges.

The four preferred to make political statements.

Their attorney argued the court has no authority

to judge these defendants, who are POWs.

The court rejected the claim.

The lawyer announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court,

but the court would not delay the trial.

Death to the murderers!

Death to the murderers!

The three judges read the sentence for 20 minutes.

The defendants are beasts, said the judges, bereft of all humanity.

This was premeditated murder, the response must be severe.

Two of the judges ruled for the death sentence.

The third judge ruled for a life sentence.

According to law, the judges explained,

a death sentence can only be applied if the vote is unanimous.

Therefore, the terrorists are sentenced to life imprisonment.

The courtroom was silent, the reaction was heard outside.

It's moving.

That's it, it's over.

I remember it more or less, I remember all these things...

But I've never seen it this way.

Did you rule for the death penalty?

That's one thing that I can...

To this day I have the privilege of not answering.

And that's how the sentence was published.

Our names weren't cited. It's not like courts in Israel,

where each judge states his opinion and his name is noted.

Deciding whether or not to sentence someone to death,

isn't an easy thing to live with.

Making this decision...

You have many sleepless nights.

You ask yourself how many lives you might save,

if you give the death penalty,

which exists in the military orders.

We, as a matter of policy,

didn't want to use the death penalty

as part of our rule

of the territories.

Were we right or wrong? Historians will decide.

But those were the instructions we issued.

Besides the death penalty, another one of your significant actions,

in terms of your vision of rule-of-law in the territories,

was your decision to allow the residents of the territories

to petition our Supreme Court against our army.

Something that international law doesn't require.

My approach

was to allow oversight of the army's conduct,

in a region under military rule.

Oversight which is not military,

nor executive oversight, but judicial oversight.

We always felt, and knew, that justice was being done.

Because the Supreme Court

is completely uninvolved in the issue, totally impartial.

It's the most respected court in Israel,

and can rule in the clearest, most unequivocal manner,

on what is just and what is not just.

SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL

The image of Palestinians gathered at the entrance of the Israeli Supreme Court

is one of the key images of rule-of-law in the occupied territories.

The Israeli Supreme Court was the first court in history

to contend with the challenge of doing justice, not just with citizens of the state,

but with people the state is holding under military occupation.

There is no precedent whereby a supreme court, anywhere in the world

hears petitions of... How would the British define it?

I hope other countries will emulate this practice,

or include it in international treaties so that

it would become universal, not an esoteric Israeli practice.

So the Supreme Court, when necessary,

took on the role of defending the population from the army.

Do you agree with that definition?

If necessary,

the Supreme Court will stand between the residents of the territory and the army.

Can you explain that?

No, there is no need to, you defined it correctly.

The Court is the supreme authority which determines

what is permitted, and what is not.

THE HEBRON SETTLERS

Renewing Jewish settlement in the City of the Patriarchs

One of the main issues the Supreme Court had to address,

was our settling of the occupied territories.

Back in 1967, Israeli citizens began settling in the territories,

claiming that settling the area is a biblical commandment.

On the other hand, an argument was raised that Article 49of the Geneva Convention

prohibits an occupying power

from transferring its citizens into the occupied area.

When it comes to Israeli settlements,

it's not a matter of "transferring population,"

which refers to forced transfer.

Here, people volunteered

to move to the West Bank of their own free will.

We'll prevent this aggression on our land.

God is great!

The opposition to the settlements led to demonstrations and confrontations

between the Palestinian residents and the army.

The resistance escalated since some of the settlements were built

on land taken from Palestinians by the military administration.

Residents received orders saying the army needs their land for security purposes,

that they must vacate and will receive compensation.

It's true that legally speaking, if it's for security purposes,

then it's legal.

The Hague Regulations allow it.

Rujeib village, at the entrance toNablus.

Yesterday, we were told that land owners received seizure orders,

today we learned that not one villager actually knows his land was seized.

Meanwhile, IDF soldiers, with a settler from "Elon Moreh"

are moving three mobile homes to the settlement.

It's all being done quickly, perhaps it's the approaching Sabbath,

or perhaps in haste to establish this new settlement.

One must realize this is the moment of truth.

The struggle for Israel's existence has just begun.

While bulldozers prepare the land,

a villager named Adel Dweikat petitions the Supreme Court.

He argues that the seizure of his land,

and that of 11other residents, is illegal.

Dweikat argues there is no security need to seize his agricultural land.

The land is being seized for civil rather than military needs,

in blatant violation of international law.

- This road is on my land! - We'll resist!

- Will you accept compensation? - No.

If necessary, we'll go to the international court. It will grant us our rights.

The Supreme Court ruling came months after the land was seized.

Elon Moreh was already a fact on the ground.

The justices wrote that international law indeed permits

the temporary seizure of private land for security purposes.

However, they added, they feel that security was not the main reason for this seizure.

There was another motive, building a civilian settlement.

Such a motive cannot justify seizure of private land in occupied territory.

The Supreme Court instructs the regional commander

to evacuate Elon Moreh and return the land to its owners.

Arik Sharon realized there was nothing to do.

The Supreme Court ruling must be upheld.

Within minutes,

he decided to call in everyone possible to hear suggestions.

A meeting was held in a large hall with a lot of people, a huge table...

I sat somewhere in the middle.

So he says, "Well, you've all heard,

"that's the Supreme Court ruling, and I want to hear your suggestions."

People started murmuring...

And I raised my hand and said,

"There's a concept called 'Mawat Land'."

He heard me...

"What did you say?" I said, "Mawat Land."

He stood up and came around to me.

He told the person sitting next to me to get up.

The guy got up. Sharon pushed him aside, sat down and asked, "What did you say?"

As the legal advisor in an occupied area,

Attorney Ramati was familiar with the land laws

dating back to the Jordanian Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire.

He told Sharon that in 19th century Ottoman land law, there's a special term,

"Mawat Land." "Dead Land."

This type of land must be far enough from the nearest village,

that one can no longer hear the crow of a rooster standing at the village's edge.

According toOttoman law,

such land may belong to someone temporarily, as long as he cultivates it.

But if he doesn't cultivate it for three years, the "Dead Land" reverts to the empire.

And legally speaking, Ramati explains,

the regional commander is nowadays the Empire.

So without beating around the bush, he says,

"With or without your rooster, be in my office tomorrow at 8:00."

And that's how it all began.

He issued orders to look for uncultivated land with helicopters.

Overnight we had a helicopter and a pilot.

Someone from operations and myself sitting in a cockpit with the pilot,

searching for "Dead Land."

We flew from place to place until we found a suitable spot.

- Where was it? - Where Elon Moreh is today!

Months later, teams of experts in law, planning, and security

patrolled the area identifying tens of thousands of acres

that fit the definition of "Dead Land,"

which could thus be declared as state land.

They say all these mountains have been seized.

But they also say they didn't belong to anyone.

All land belongs to someone.

There's no land without someone to care for it.

Don't you work there?

We work for a living, for money.

BUILDING QUALITY OF LIFE

But while the construction of new settlements is booming,

another petition is submitted to the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL

This time by villagers from Tarkumiyeh, near Hebron.

Hundreds of acres near their village were declared to be state land.

The villagers argue before the Supreme Court

that even if certain land could be considered state land

back in Jordanian or Ottoman times,

international law still prohibits Israel from using this land as it pleases.

The presiding justice was Meir Shamgar,

who had been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975.

Then another petition was submitted against the practice

of using state land. And this was brought before you.

The petitioner was Fadel Al Nazar.

Do you remember the case?

No.

In the Al Nazar case, Justice Shamgar had to determine what we can or cannot do

with land that is considered "Occupied State Property".

Shamgar explains that the Hague Convention states

that an occupying army is only a guardian of the occupied state's property.

The army may not transfer ownership of the property. It must care for it,

and return it to the occupied state when the occupation ends.

You have it, I see.

I have the ruling, yes.

Do you want to see it?

No. Not here. I want to read it.

In the judgment, Shamgar writes that despite all the prohibitions,

the Hague convention permits an occupying power

to make temporary use of the occupied state's property.

Under that definition, explains Shamgar,

the occupied property may be rented, leased or cultivated.

Therefore the actions of the military concerning occupied state property

are compatible with international law.

Today, some half a million Israeli citizens live in the territories conquered in 1967.

Most of them live in settlements built on hundreds of thousands of acres,

declared by the military commander to be state land.

Israeli state land.

Looking back at this brilliant legal idea you had,

the revival of definitions in Ottoman land law.

It was a small step with significant historical implications.

You could look at it that way.

You could say I was part of an historic development.

In retrospect, do you think it was the right move?

I don't think anyone can answer that.

Only history will tell if it was the right move.

No one knows what will come of all this.

When will that be?

- When? - When will history look back?

I don't know, definitely not next year. Many years from now.

The existence of half a million Israeli settlers,

in areas which we still control,

which is partly the result of a number of Supreme Court cases...

Today, this is a political fact.

Look, I don't think this is connected to Supreme Court rulings.

There is no indication that the steps taken by the court

are connected to this phenomenon.

This is a political phenomenon which is not connected to the court.

Let's take one aspect I brought up before,

international law clearly forbids transferring population

from the occupying state to the occupied area.

Why didn't the court see this as something it needed to oppose?

That is a question after the fact. I don't know.

- Like that? - Yes.

Justice Shamgar doesn't see the connection

between Supreme Court rulings and our settlements in the occupied territories.

But I, the person documenting, do see a connection.

And I present the rulings and events as I understand them.

Because in the world of the film, I rule on what reality is.

The Palestinian residents say they too did not see the connection

between Ottoman law,

and the establishment of the large settlements of Ariel, Kiryat Arba, and Efrat.

The connection was made by legal professionals,

adopted by the government,

vetted by Supreme Court rulings, and became part of the law.

If we look back to the early orders issued in 1967,

they state that anyone violating the order and security of the area

will be tried in a military court.

But by the late 1970s, the legal system realized that the "dry rules"

cannot remain the only consideration.

The legal status of settlers constantly posed new legal challenges.

The settlers are singing, but what their mouths say is not what their hands do.

- Did they beat you? - Yes.

I could get him back if I wanted to,

but my uniform requires me not to harm a Jew.

A traffic jam in the middle of town.

Suddenly a group of settlers from the Jewish Quarter of Hebron appears.

The legal professionals explain that legally speaking, the Israeli residents

are also subject to military law and courts.

But since they are Israeli citizens, they may be tried in Israeli courts, inside Israel.

Rabbi, what's going on here?

What's going on here in Hebron?

As a military prosecutor,

if a case concerning a Jewish resident landed on my desk,

I'd pass it on to the police, to the civilian system.

I wouldn't deal with it.

- Once in a long while... - Why?

Because the military court was established to take care of

the occupied population and nothing else.

Those living under occupation. Jews weren't under occupation.

That's a distinction between the two populations.

So there are two totally separate law enforcement systems?

Right.

Wouldn't such a separation cause problems?

No, I don't think it caused problems,

as long as Israelis were brought to trial.

But the claim was that Israelis were not being tried

in the same manner that Palestinians were tried for security offenses.

What did you think about that claim?

I'm asking your personal opinion.

Once again, I didn't deal with Israeli civilians.

I think the civilian system could have been tougher and more decisive

when trying and interrogating settlers.

Just as today the situation is not so brilliant.

In the early 1980s, a decade before these images were filmed,

the Israeli Ministry of Justice published a report

on the enforcement of law on Israelis in the territories.

The report determined that the law is almost never enforced on Israelis.

Especially in cases of damage to Palestinian property,

violence against Palestinians,

and even in cases of manslaughter or murder.

I think the attitude toward settlers,

not just the legal system's attitude,

the government too, the attitude was that...

We never really knew how to deal with this issue.

You were never certain.

Am I being too tough? Maybe I'm being too lenient?

There were always doubts.

With the Palestinian population, we didn't have those doubts,

because apparently their intention was to undermine the government.

You can't say that about the Israeli settlers.

Therefore, it's different, you couldn't just say,

"There's one law and I'll treat everyone the same, no matter what."

You have to be practical.

You can't say that, it wouldn't be right.

Order prohibiting incitement and hostile propaganda

Order concerning Israeli licenses for firearms

Order concerning protection of nature

Order concerning license fees for cosmetics

Order concerning accountants

With our spirit and blood we will redeem the martyr.

In December 1987,

a widespread popular uprising breaks out in the Occupied Territories.

The temporary military occupation enters its 21st year.

Palestinian frustration erupts in mass demonstrations,

and activities against the army and the Israeli settlers.

The uprising exacts a high price from the local population,

but brings their plight to the awareness of the international community.

The whole world watches the only democracy in the Middle East

as it deals with a popular uprising.

We are determined to impose order.

It requires time and patience,

the adjustment of forces and methods to the circumstances.

Israel chooses not to give in and retreat from the territories,

but at the same time,

not to use all of its military force against the rebellious population.

The goal is to try to cause the Palestinians to obey the law once more.

In the shadow of the familiar images from the "Intifada,"

is the work of the military legal men.

They had to adapt the law to the new reality in the region.

They were the ones who had to enforce the law and deliver justice.

General Corps

You know, sometimes I look at the court rulings and ask myself,

when you write a judgment, its purpose is not only to punish,

but also to rectify.

Of course, you can't rectify a population that sees you as an occupier,

and views its own actions as morally justified.

So it turns into a kind of "market," "how much will he get?"

The element of rectification doesn't exist.

The whole concept of corrections turns into,

"You did that to me, I'll get you back. I'm going to put you away."

- Why are you here? - Why am I here?

- Why are you here? - Me? The Intifada.

- What did you do? - I threw stones.

- You threw stones? - Yes.

What's your sentence?

Fourteen months.

- Why am I here? - Yes.

I'm a Palestinian in the Intifada.

- What did you do? - What did I do?

I made flyers and wrote things.

- You wrote on walls and flyers? - Yes.

- What did you get for doing that? - Two and a half years.

- Two and half years? - Yes.

- What did you do? - Nothing.

Really, I'm innocent.

- Really nothing? - Really nothing.

So what did they say you did?

- They said, "You did something bad." - What?

"You gave someone a ride.

"And he threw stones."

I said it's not true. That's what happened.

- What's your sentence? - Six and a half months and 500 shekels.

It reminded me of the little Dutch boy,

with his finger in the hole in the dike, the hole that keeps getting bigger.

You put your finger in, you finish 20 cases,

and they tell you there are 200 more detainees.

At the beginning of the Intifada the system was helpless.

They would bring you 200 youths for extension of arrest,

youths who were caught throwing those stones.

Then there had to be trials. Non-stop, all day.

You threw a stone? You didn't throw a stone?

It exhausted the judge. We needed help from other judges.

It was too much of a strain on the system.

We were somewhere in the middle,

on one hand, we're supposed to help the armed forces carry out their duties,

and provide solutions, what arms to use,

at the time they had plastic bullets and rubber bullets and so on...

On the other hand, to protect the rights of the residents of the territories.

They don't have "civic" rights, they're not citizens of Israel, Switzerland or the U.S.

but they're residents and human beings, and that's how we treated them.

Keep moving!

Go ahead!

One of our main means of suppressing the uprising

was to imprison as many activists as possible.

In the course of the uprising, more than 50,000 people are arrested.

Some are arrested a number of times.

Some detainees were charged with crimes and brought to trial.

But according to the law in the territories, a person can also be arrested

without being indicted or brought to trial.

This "administrative arrest" is put into effect with an order

issued by the army against a particular person.

The order states this person constitutes a threat to security,

and therefore, must be arrested.

To prevent arbitrary use of these means,

the law stipulated that administrative detainees

must be brought before a judge within 96 hours of their arrest,

in order to examine whether the arrest was justified.

At the beginning of the Intifada,

I was informed that five administrative detainees from Gaza

were not brought before a judge within 96 hours.

They'd been in prison for more than a week. "What should we do with them?"

My answer was simple, "Release them!"

They said, "What? We're in the middle of an Intifada...

"Gaza is boiling over, and you're setting them free?"

I said, "It's not me, it's the law.

"Anyone not brought before a judge within 96 hours will be released."

After much yelling and arguing,

they were finally released, as the law dictates, and in accordance with our orders.

But then I realized that in desperate times maybe we should change the law.

What does that mean, "change the law?"

I'm imagining parliamentary debate...

No, no. Legislation in the territories is simpler than three readings in parliament.

It's mostly based on orders issued by the regional commanders.

So the order was amended, a few times actually, but to put it simply,

A. There's no requirement to bring a detainee before a judge

unless the detainee makes a request, and

B. We removed the 96 hour time limit.

And the system continued to work.

There was oversight, but it wasn't as strict as before.

I think that's a good example of how the legal system

can and should aid the military system,

and come up with appropriate solutions.

Could you say more about this issue of changing the law?

Who did you have to report to? What kind of deliberations?

That's not interesting. I decided to recommend an amendment to the law,

I sent it to the minister of defense, he passed it on to the high command...

Good afternoon.

One, two, four, seven, eight...

Removing the requirement to review every administrative detention,

made arrests much easier.

Many detainees didn't see the point of appealing.

Under the new rules, the army was not required to hold a hearing about their case.

A detainee who demanded to see a judge, was given a hearing

within a number of weeks or months before an officer with legal training.

Marwan Hassan Mahmoudi... Mahmadi Afana.

Wow, I was the judge.

Prisoner No. 22333.

This is very moving.

Seeing a case from 1990.

I'll read what the prisoner says on page two.

I asked the General Security Service agent, "Why am I being held?"

I didn't confess to anything, I'm a married man with three children,

until my arrest I worked in Israel, in Rehovot.

I have my employer's phone number with me.

The prisoner's attorney demands to reveal at least some of the evidence,

so the prisoner can respond to the accusations.

The prosecutor refuses, "The material is classified,

"revealing it will harm the security of the area."

You have to decide. First, should this Marwan be arrested?

Secondly, should some of the material against him be revealed?

Perhaps you can read your decision?

Classified information reveals, beyond any shadow of a doubt,

ongoing illegal activity, including violent activity.

The reliability and content of the classified information,

led me to accept the classified information,

however, in order not to reveal its sources,

and so as not to endanger the security of the public and the region,

the evidence in the classified file will not be revealed.

You're being shown information from what's known as a "source."

One of our collaborators.

And you ask the prisoner,

"What's your response to what this guy says you did?"

Not always.

The prisoner is only given a paraphrase.

He isn't shown the material regarding what he allegedly did.

That way we don't give away our sources.

I'll give you an example,

A certain group from a certain terrorist organization, planned such and such...

There were three or four men in the group.

One way or another, without great difficulty,

once he's shown what he planned,

he'll know where it happened, who was there.

It has to be one of the those four.

Do you call in these sources as witnesses?

Not the sources themselves, but their testimonies, yes.

So what do you actually see?

Documents, the source's code-name,

I was trying to verify with the GSS agent,

whether he could explain...

If I don't understand something in the testimony,

and whether the source is reliable.

Of course, I have to take as a given

that all my information

comes through the GSS agents.

In that context, what was your relationship with the GSS agents

who testified before you?

Did you ever doubt their reliability?

If so, why did you doubt them?

No, as a rule, I didn't doubt what they said.

The interview with attorney Pessenson lasted almost three hours.

He told me many more things.

For example, that he volunteered to hear these appeals,

because many military attorneys didn't want to do it.

He told me he was known as the last judge to leave the holding camp at night,

since he wanted to read all of his cases carefully.

One could say, in Pessenson's words,

that the viewer is only hearing a "paraphrase" of my interview with him,

since I decide which parts of our conversation to show,

and which to leave out.

The viewer can't ask attorney Pessenson what he thinks

about how I edited the interview.

The viewer is free to judge what he hears.

But all the information comes from me.

I'm trying to figure out, where in this process

are you independent of the Security Service?

- Show me the point... - When I decide whether to listen to the GSS,

or make an independent decision that contradicts them.

- And are you sure... - No.

That one day you won't discover that many people served time...

I'm not sure. I'm not sure, but...

One obligation I can't avoid is the obligation to make a ruling.

And one burden I can't avoid is the heavy feeling

that I'm not being told the truth from beginning to end.

But I can't... My obligation is to make a ruling.

And if I make a different ruling, I know that someone might die.

That's a limitation.

But both the legislator and the Supreme Court allow...

This was challenged a few times, "Why don't you show me the evidence?"

So we trust that the judge who sees the evidence can understand it.

This is a limitation of the system, where security comes before human rights.

I agree.

I have no better solution.

A judge who rules on an administrative arrest,

what are his options?

The judge has three options:

1. He can approve the order as is.

2. He can rescind the order and rule for immediate release.

3. He can amend the order by shortening the duration of detention,

which was six or sometimes four months.

The GSS always ask for the full six months, the maximum.

They would have asked for more if they could.

What could make a military judge decide that in four months,

the person won't be dangerous?

The evidence, as I said before.

If it indicates that the person won't be dangerous four months later.

Does that sound plausible? That in four months he won't be dangerous?

So you're saying,

why bother to bring it before a judge? Why do we play this game?

That's my question...

Didn't the job of doing "something" get dumped on you, the legal men?

Something needs to be done.

We don't want to do it in an unacceptable manner,

so we look for a legal solution.

Not at all. I disagree.

Wait sir, he's sick.

Get up.

The steps we took to suppress the uprising led to a wave of Supreme Court petitions.

These petitions, and thousands of others since,

bring up more than just legal questions.

They demonstrate how the Supreme Court,

a staunch defender of individual rights in Israel,

dealt with the challenge of defending the rights

of the residents of the occupied territories,

while faced with the army's demands

to carry out activities it defined as security imperatives.

The fields of grain, and pastoral view of village houses could be deceptive...

The village was placed under curfew while

military engineers prepared a punitive demolition

of a house whose residents were clearly identified as some of the culprits.

Time and again the Supreme Court discussed the demolition of homes of

residents suspected of harming Israelis.

In order to increase deterrence among the population.

The Court heard many petitions about deportations

of suspected leaders of the uprising.

Deportations intended to weaken the resistance organizations.

Sometimes you take steps because they are a necessity dictated by the circumstances.

Not because you think they provide a solution,

but because the alternative is much worse.

The judges had to rule on the severe restrictions on freedom of movement

imposed on residents since the 1990s,

and to contend with the differences between the rights

of Israeli settlers and those of Palestinian residents.

In the last decade, the Supreme Court was asked

to stop the practice of "targeted killings,"

the summary execution of residents partaking in,

or responsible for, military activity.

Time and again the judges instruct the army

to use restraint with the occupied population.

But the Court almost never rules that an action

the army sees as a security imperative, is illegal.

I can understand how a military commander feels,

but for you, the military legal community,

what is your attitude towards this institution?

Everyone talks about reverence.

What does that mean? That the Supreme Court

limits your ability to give the army what it needs?

There's no doubt that some Supreme Court rulings are not comfortable.

The Supreme Court is the entity that

balances the needs of security and legality.

And at the end of the day, I think that, thanks to the Court,

many of the military's actions are legitimized.

The very fact that the Court permits a certain action,

gives the action a legal seal of approval, and makes it possible

to keep doing it under the restrictions set by the Supreme Court.

Now, in the 1970s and 1980s, Parliament could have passed a law,

a constitutional law or regular law,

that the Supreme Court cannot hear petitions

submitted by residents of the territories.

- Couldn't they? - Then why didn't they?

You have to ask the politicians, all the critics who say, "Limit the Court's power."

Why didn't they pass a law?

Because in many instances, the Supreme Court is convenient for the security forces.

That's the price we pay.

In many cases the Supreme Court forbids an action and in other cases,

probably more cases, the Supreme Court permits the act.

I ask myself if it's not worth looking at the issue with a somewhat critical eye.

Because residents of the territories claim they've lost their rights,

been expelled from lands,

deportations, demolition of houses.

After you retired, the practice of targeted killings appeared...

The separation wall...

There is a claim made against the Supreme Court...

They say, "You keep doing justice with us but we don't feel that justice."

I don't think there are claims like that. Sure, there are complaints,

specific complaints, about the results of a particular proceeding.

Someone might not be satisfied with the result of a particular proceeding.

But I don't think there is doubt about the very existence

of the institution for the purpose I mentioned.

That's my feeling.

Do you think that we, the citizens of Israel,

would accept a legal system like the one we operate in the territories?

Well, that's a very theoretical question, isn't it?

Theoretical, but possibly practical,

because it's sometimes a good way to observe reality.

That's true,

but it's a hypothetical situation.

And I don't see a reason to express my opinion on a hypothetical situation.

Would you like to take a break for coffee or something?

I see you have many more documents.

Well, there's always too much paper.

Perhaps I, as a civilian and not a legal professional,

there's a limit to the questions I can ask, or critiques I can offer.

But I'd like to read something written

by a law professor from Hebrew University.

"In its decisions relating to the Occupied Territories

"the Supreme Court has rationalized

"virtually all controversial acts of the Israeli authorities..."

In 2002, an Israeli legal scholar studied the results of Supreme Court rulings

on petitions submitted during the first 30 years of military occupation.

He demonstrated that in almost all cases, the Supreme Court found

questionable means to justify the occupation activities of the military

even when these contradicted international law.

"Punitive demolition of houses contradicts principles of international law,

"they don't meet the standards of human rights, or the principles of criminal law.

"The Court ignored these principles time and again..."

The same legal scholar brought up a theoretical question,

"What if the Supreme Court hadn't opened its gates to the residents of the territories?"

And left the question of what can or cannot legally be done

to the army or government.

This scholar estimates that in the short term,

loss of the Supreme Court's power of restraint would have led

to the use of much harsher methods against the occupied population.

But could such a situation, he asks, delegitimize the occupation

in the eyes of Israeli society, and bring it to its end?

"Is it possible that the absence of judicial oversight

"would have made... Made the occupation harder for Israeli society to accept."

I don't, I don't agree, that's all.

What kind of statement is this? A legal scholar says this?

It would be better if there would be no judicial oversight?

Would that be accepted in any democratic state?

Only in Israel can you write books like that and then become a university professor.

Do you mean that the statement is in opposition to rule-of-law?

Of course, it completely negates rule-of-law.

It's Leninism.

Lenin once said,

"The worse, the better!"

Which means the worse things are, the better. That's Leninism.

But anyone who thinks logically knows that preventing unwanted consequences

is always better than saying, "If only things were worse,

"then there'd be an outcry and they would stop."

What kind of statement is this?

In September of 1999, the Supreme Court made one of the rare rulings

in which it went beyond simply restraining the occupation,

but abolished one of the practices used by the security forces.

The Supreme Court rejected the Security Service's position,

and ruled that the use of physical force during interrogation is illegal in Israel.

Henceforth, except in extreme cases,

interrogators cannot use torture to extract information.

This ruling was given at the end of a decade

during which Palestinian residents of the occupied territories

carried out mass suicide attacks in cities in the heart of Israel.

Many voices in the Israeli public blamed the Supreme Court

for preferring Palestinian human rights to the security of Israeli citizens.

Death to the Arabs!

However, the process that led to this judicial precedent

began 12 years earlier, long before the large-scale suicide attacks,

and even before the Intifada.

In 1987, a governmental commission

investigated the GSS's methods of interrogation.

The commission determined

that since the early years of the occupation the GSS has been using

various forms of torture during interrogation.

The committee revealed that when

defendants claimed they were tortured,

GSS procedure was for interrogators to testify in court and deny use of force.

The committee emphasized that the judges who heard the false testimony,

were not aware of these methods.

Do you remember? It had to do with GSS interrogation methods,

and what they did or didn't tell the judges.

Yes, but let's put it this way, as a...

Of course, I've been inside the GSS.

They didn't stop me from going in.

Maybe improper things happened there, but I didn't know about them.

The GSS agents testified that the judges knew about it.

Absolutely not. Definitely not!

We knew about some of it. But everything?

Did they ever let a judge into an interrogation room? Never.

I can tell you that with absolute certainty!

So judges never saw an interrogation facility...

We never saw one, didn't know, we never witnessed an interrogation,

and we didn't know what their methods were.

I remember a case where

the defendant claimed he was beaten.

The prosecution subpoenaed the doctor who treated him in prison,

a Palestinian doctor. The doctor just stood there trembling.

The question was what was his condition when he arrived,

whether the bruises were fresh or old.

I saw that the doctor was about to cry.

- So... - Why?

Because he knew what he was expected to say,

and apparently he remembered what he saw

and it was difficult for him to answer.

I didn't see the actual interrogation process,

but I saw what state they were in, in the interrogation rooms.

Not during the interrogation itself.

What state were they in?

Not good.

Not good, but you don't know how they interrogate them.

I don't know the appropriate way to interrogate, either.

So what did you know about the interrogations?

I don't want to go into it. I don't think it serves any purpose.

Once again, I came

to talk about the legal aspect,

not the interrogation aspect.

I only mention the interrogation aspect peripherally.

The legal aspect is bad enough that I don't have to get into areas

in which I'm not an expert.

I want to read a testimony given by a prisoner in 1989.

The prisoner was 42 years old, a schoolteacher.

He was interrogated for 30 days

and then released with no charge.

"He took the sack off my head,

"and I found myself in a room with a man in his 30s.

"He asked me a few personal and general questions,

"and informed me that I was arrested on four charges.

"Membership in the Islamic Jihad, recruiting members,

"purchasing weapons, engaging in armed activities.

"I denied the accusations, which weren't true,

"and I told him to show me proof.

"He said there were other people who would testify against me.

"I said he should let me confront those people.

"He cursed at me, spat in my face a number of times,

"pulled my beard and hair, and demanded that I confess.

"He tied my hands behind my back with another pair of handcuffs,

"he cuffed my legs with a third pair.

"He punched me in the eyes and karate-chopped me in my stomach,

"my hips and neck. Then he left the room."

I'm leaving some out. This is a week later.

"I heard a door open and felt a billy-club hit my thigh and shoulder.

"Some others joined in beating me and pushing me from one to another.

"I fell a few times. Each time they picked me up and continued.

"I didn't confess. He handcuffed me and put me back in the closet.

"I banged on the door. He asked, 'What do you want?'

"I told him I wanted to get out.

"He opened the door, hit me in the face and head,

"and locked the door again.

"They pulled my pants down and threw me back on the floor, facing down.

"Someone tried to shove a billy-club through my underwear into my behind.

"It hurt. I tried to get free but I couldn't.

"I lost sensation in my hands.

"They threw me on the floor and took off my shoes.

"They hit me in my testicles..."

What are you asking me? Whether I knew about these things?

- Whether as a judge you were aware of... - Of course.

Even though the government commission reported that the judges

- were not aware of these things. - I was aware of them.

Let's say a prisoner is being interrogated in a way in which he

feels like he's being coerced.

As a judge, is there anything you can do about it?

Theoretically, yes.

Theoretically, you can write rulings, you can complain,

you can speak out. Practically speaking, no.

You serve a system and you... It's very hard to shake off the...

The feeling that you're serving a system.

You're in uniform, you represent the IDF.

You represent a significant part of Israeli society,

which has very set opinions

about "us" and "them."

It's hard to shake that off.

I come from the free world.

A world where, if I want to ask someone a question, I ask.

And if he doesn't want to answer, he doesn't.

I can't twist his arm and force him.

And you arrive in a world

whose purpose is to protect you from possibilities...

That tomorrow, those people, they might come and kill you.

- What world? - The world that is... The gray world.

Where there are people whose job it is to protect you.

And you don't always know what they do and how.

And they walk the fine line between legal and illegal.

Who? I don't understand who you're talking about.

There are people whose job it is to protect your life.

So you can sit across from me now, and go to a movie tonight,

and not get blown up, or killed, or shot at in the street.

The question is, how do you conduct yourself?

How does this affect your decisions?

So what did you do?

First of all, I do believe people. That's my point of departure.

Who? The detainee? Or the interrogator?

I believe... When a detainee tells me what they did to him,

I'm pretty suspicious. Because he has his interests.

To begin with, I believe the agent of the authorities.

Because his job is to protect me.

Attorney Pessenson says that certain people should interrogate other people

so I can go to a movie in the evening, or sit across and interview him.

He reminds me that in the situation we've reached,

my personal security depends on the violation of the security of others.

That my freedom depends on denying others their freedom.

That the making of this film, and its viewing, are taking place

under the protection of people responsible for this security and freedom.

He clarifies that the law I'm documenting

might apply only to other people, but is written for me.

As a military judge you don't just represent justice.

I think that a civilian judge represents justice, and society in general.

As a military judge, you represent the authorities of the occupation,

vis-a-vis a population that sees you as the enemy.

You're conducting a trial against your enemy.

- Not against him, you're the judge! - You're the judge,

yes, but he stands before you, and he's the enemy.

It's an unnatural situation. As long as it's only temporary, fine.

But when it goes on for 40 years? How can the system function? How can it be just?

All right. We won't solve the problems.

If you had to decide all over again, whether to accept the appointment...

The appointment as judge, would you take it?

Yes.

Let's stop.

Are we stopping?

My answers are the most you'll get out of me.

I did my best.

From case number 2058 in 2011.

The military prosecutor vs. Bassem Tamimi.

The defendant addresses the court,

"Your honor,

"I was born in the same year as the occupation,

"and ever since, I've been living under its inherent inhumanity, inequality,

"racism and lack of freedom.

"I have been imprisoned nine times for a sum total of almost three years,

"though I was never convicted of any felony.

"During one of my detentions, I was paralyzed as a result of torture.

"My wife was detained, my children wounded, my land stolen

"by settlers, and now my house is slated for demolition.

"International law recognizes that occupied people

"have the right to resist.

"Because of my belief in this right, I organize popular demonstrations

"against the theft of more than half of my village's land.

"Against settler attacks, against the occupation.

"You, who claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East,

"are trying me under laws written by authorities I have not elected,

"and which do not represent me.

"For me, these laws do not exist, they are meaningless.

"The military prosecutor accuses me

"of inciting protesters to throw stones at the soldiers.

"What actually incited them was the occupation's bulldozers on our land,

"the guns, the smell of tear-gas.

"And if the military judge releases me,

"will I be convinced there is justice in your courts?"

Bassem Tamimi is standing trial in the military court

at the same time that work on this film is being concluded.

I will probably move on to document another subject.

The audience has finished watching the reality that has been presented,

and can now go back to everyday reality.

The "subject" of documentation waits, under arrest, for his judgment.