Search
  • dwaldman33

Grounds for administrative order: Protest opposite Major-General’s residence

Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 9:36 In a written reply to Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado, the GOC of the Central Command, Major-General Roni Numa stated that the intent of a Jewish youth to protest opposite the Major-General’s residence constitutes proof that he is “a member of an organization having an extreme ideology”, which is a justifiable basis for serving him with an administrative order. The youth, Tzuriel HaCohen, a shepherd residing in Givat HaBaladim, has been banned by an administrative order signed by Major-General Numa from entering the regions of Yehuda and Shomron, other than Kiryat Arba. The order was recently extended. This week, in reply to claims voiced by Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado during a hearing on HaCohen’s case, the IDF Central Command presented a summary of the basis of the reasoning for serving the order. According to the Central Command, HaCohen is “a member of an organization having an extreme ideology intended to bring down the government,” and is therefore dangerous. The summary mentions that HaCohen is recognized as someone who has resided for the past few years in the outposts Geulat Tzion and HaBaladim and has been detained during destructions of outposts. Additionally the Central Command mentioned that HaCohen had violated an order signed by the previous GOC of Central Command, Major-General Nitzan Alon. Other information used as proof that serving an administrative order to HaCohen was warranted, is that he is a member of the aforementioned organization and that it is his intention to protest administrative orders opposite Major-General Numa’s residence in Ramat Gan. “Also in February 2016, close to the time of your request, your client continued to be involved with activities in the aforementioned organization (“HaMered”), wrote the Major-General in response to Yado. “Also noted is your client’s arrival in the city of Ramat Gan for the purpose of holding a demonstration opposite the residence of the GOC of Central Command, in protest of administrative orders enforced in the Yehuda and Shomron regions.” First Lieutenant Ranana Krauser, a public inquiries representative at the office of the GOC Central Command, wrote that Major-General Roni Numa decided that the youth “posed a certain danger to the security of the region,” and decided to postpone the hearing and leave the order standing. A report by detectives from the Department of Nationalist Crime in the Central Unit of the Yehuda and Shomron Police was attached to the summary. The detectives had arrived at the residence of Major-General Numa in light of information that a protest would take place opposite the residence. At a bus stop near the residence the detectives noticed the youth, who told them that he had come for the protest, but when he did not see any other protesters, left the scene. Honenu strongly responded to the report and said that it appears that the Major-General is taking advantage of his authority in order to subjugate the legal protests being held opposite his residence, which sends a message that recipients of the administrative orders prohibiting them from entering certain regions who protest opposite the Major-General’s residence, will be “rewarded” with an extension of their orders. Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado, who is representing HaCohen, said in response that, “The fact that participation in a protest serves as grounds for the Major General to extend an administrative order, indicates that the administrative orders already do not serve only as a means to ensure security but rather as social and political means by which the Major-General not only prevents actions which threaten security, but rather also determines which opinions are permitted and which are prohibited, for which [opinions] it is permitted to protest and for which it is prohibited, and who has freedom of expression and who does not. “In this instance the Major-General determined that someone who wished to protest against him should be deprived of his freedom. Therefore this conduct has clearly totalitarian characteristics, and one should be aware of that.” See here: “Clear violation of the freedom of expression” and here: Is protest against administrative orders being silenced? for reports of youths detained for planning the protest opposing the current IDF policy of issuing administrative orders.

0 views0 comments