Commission Rejects Adalah's Motion to Rescind Warnings Against Arab Leaders
On 14 March 2002, the official Commission of Inquiry into the October 2000 protest demonstrations (hereafter "the Commission") rejected Adalah's motion filed on 12 March 2002, to rescind warnings issued against Arab leaders in Israel. The Commission issued warnings to Members of Knesset (MKs) Dr. Azmi Bishara (National Democratic Assembly) and Abd el-Malik Dehamshe (United Arab List), as well as Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, the leader of the Islamic movement in Israel. Adalah sought an annulment of the warnings on the following grounds:
- The inclusion of the issue of "incitement" within the mandate of the Commission violates the Commissions of Inquiry Law (1968) and contradicts past commission experience.
- The Commission discriminated against Arab leaders. Not only did it focus on the activities of Arab leaders while ignoring those of Jewish rioters, it questioned Arab leaders on their political positions and agendas without attending to those of Jewish politicians.
- It relied on selective, biased information provided by the GSS and/or police intelligence as a basis for the issuance of warnings against Arab leaders.
For further information on the illegality of the warnings issued against Arab leaders, see Adalah's News Updates, "Adalah Files a Motion to the Commission to Rescind Warnings Against Arab Leaders" (13 March 2002) and "Adalah: Warnings Issued By Commission to Arab Leaders Are Illegal and Based on Irrelevant Considerations" (28 February 2002).
In its decision to reject Adalah's motion, the Commission wrote that it had acted in accordance with the mandate assigned to it by the Israeli government on 8 November 2000. The Commission noted for the first time that it had considered Adalah's request of 19 November 2000 to use the powers granted by Article 2(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Law to seek changes to this mandate.
The Commission justified its decision not to amend references to "incitement" and calls for the investigation of citizens that featured in the mandate by reference to the Baskey Commission, established in 1985 to investigate allegations that Israeli bankers were misrepresenting stocks to the public.
The two Commissions are, however, fundamentally different. The Baskey Commission was established by the Knesset Committee for the State Comptroller, under the State Comptroller Law (1958), following an investigation by the Comptroller. Conversely, the official Commission of Inquiry into the October 2000 protest demonstrations was established by the government, under the Commissions of Inquiry Law (1968). While the State Comptroller Law empowers the Comptroller to investigate citizens, the purpose of the Commissions of Inquiry Law is, exclusively, to investigate state authorities. Moreover, the Baskey Commission was established by an organ within the legislative branch to investigate the conduct of bankers, whereas the present Commission was set up by the executive branch, for the purpose of investigating Israeli government and police officials.
In its decision, the Commission dismissed the accusations of discrimination raised in Adalah's motion. It claimed that it investigated the political views of Arab leaders in order to understand the background and determine the causes of the events of October 2000. The decision contained no mention of then-MK Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif compound on 28 September 2000, which was cited in Adalah's motion. Further, the decision denied that GSS and/or police intelligence released information to the Commission in a biased manner, based solely on considerations of national identity.
Subsequent to this motion, on 24 March 2002, Adalah sent a letter to the Commission requesting that it specify precisely which materials were used as the bases for the warnings issued against each of the three Arab leaders.
