11 Anarchists Against The Wall sentenced

The trial of 11 activists belonging to the group Anarchists Against The Wall reached its end today after about three years. Seven of the defendants had their convictions for illegal assembly and destruction of public property set aside in exchange for 80 hours of community service. The verdict for three other defendants was postponed to 18th March because of a demand for combining these indictments with previous indictments for political activity. AATW activist Jonathan Pollak received a 3-month suspended sentence.

---

11 Anarchists Against The Wall sentenced

The trial of 11 activists belonging to the group Anarchists Against The Wall reached its end today after about three years. Seven of the defendants had their convictions for illegal assembly and destruction of public property set aside in exchange for 80 hours of community service. The verdict for three other defendants was postponed to 18th March because of a demand for combining these indictments with previous indictments for political activity. AATW activist Jonathan Pollak received a 3-month suspended sentence.

In a packed courtroom full of supporters, the verdict was read in the first trial of the group Anarchists Against The Wall. The charges stemmed from arrests at a demonstration in front of the army headquarters on February 3, 2004. That day marked the beginning of the proceedings in the International Court of Justice at the Hague about the legality of the Apartheid Wall. Earlier in the day the activists were prevented from reaching a demonstration near Tul Karem and, in response, blocked Kaplan street, in front of the army headquarters and graffiti-ed its walls.

Pollak refused to cooperate with the probation services and asked the court to sentence him to an actual jail term and not a suspended sentence. His reasons were explained in the statement he read to the court (see below).

The judge did not grant Pollak's request and sentenced him to a 3-month suspended sentence, which will be imposed if Pollak is convicted of illegal assembly in the next two years. The judge stated that he avoided imposing a fine because he knew that Pollak would not pay it.

The members of the group were represented by Adv. Gaby Lasky, who has been the group's lawyer for several years.

The line of defence Lasky used was based on the principles of civil resistance, and used international law, mainly the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals, to legally justify breaking local law in order to uphold international law.

Jonathan Pollak's sentencing statement

“From the first moment of this trial we took responsibility for our acts. We've never denied, even for an instant, that we sat on the road. Quite the opposite – we fully admitted this, and we explained why we did so. The defence was revolved around two central axes - exposing the police's lies and their invention of fictional accusations, which the court has already addressed, and on the principals of civil resistance. In its decision, the court stated that we were attempting to drag this court into the political arena, which it should avoid like fire, lest it get burned. In fact, the state prosecution was the one doing the dragging. In every crime and in every trial, the question of motive is a central one. Our so called crime is clearly a political one, and so are its motives.

This trial, had it not taken place in a court of the occupation, in the democracy imposed on 3.5 million Palestinian subjects devoid of basic democratic liberties, would have been the trial of the Wall; that same wall that was defined as illegal by the highest legal authority in the world; that same wall that is used as a political tool in the campaign of ethnic cleansing being undertaken by Israel in the Occupied Territories; that same wall that in its previous route, that route of the relevant days, was thrown out even by Israeli courts! It was not us who should have been standing accused here, but rather the architects and enforcers of Israeli Apartheid.

To our assertion that there is a duty to violate the law at times, the court answered that in such times, one must accept the punishment as well. This response contains an obvious moral failure. The correct response would be that those who violate the law must expect punishment. Expect it, but under no circumstances accept its legitimacy.

I am not surprised that we were found guilty. But in spite of that, I cannot accept the legitimacy of the punishment. That is the reason I refused to cooperate with the parole agency, and I will refuse community service as well.

I believe that at this stage of the trial the defence tends to state that this is the defendant's first conviction, that he is a normal human being, who is well within the bounds of civil society, that he works a steady job and so on and so forth. I will argue otherwise. I will state that while this is indeed my first conviction, it is unlikely to be my last. I still believe that what I did was necessary and morally correct, and that resistance to oppression is the duty of every human being, even at a personal price.

It is customary to ask for leniency – not to impose an active sentence, and to be satisfied with a conditional sentence. I will ask not to have a conditional sentence imposed on me, but an active one, since as things are, any demonstration taking place in the Occupied Territories is declared illegal assembly, according to the extensive and anti-democratic system of closed military zone warrants. In this state of affairs, any conditional sentence imposed upon me will quickly become an active one. If your honour believes one should be sent to prison for such acts, please take the liberty and personally send me to prison here and now.”

[Article adapted for Anarkismo.net from reports on www.awalls.org]

Jonathan Pollak