Israeli officials announced today that they have reached a deal with Khader Adnan. According to reports, they will not extend his administrative detention beyond his current term, which ends on April 17. It has been also reported that he will end his hunger strike, although it has not yet been confirmed that he has accepted Israel’s terms.
Ofir Gendelman, a spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said “if there’s no new evidence against him, he will be released from custody on April 17,” adding that Adnan is also a “dangerous terrorist.”
No new evidence? Does this mean that their current “evidence” is not sufficient to keep him in prison? Could there be any clearer proof that Israel has no case against Khader Adnan (and who knows how many hundreds of additional detainees?)
This deal only underscores the inherent injustice of Israel’s administrative detention policy – one that makes a mockery of democracy and due process.
Shalom Rav 
Actually, no. This case does not make a mockery of democracy and due process. National security issues often butt up against issues of due process in democracies as exposing the source of intellegence in open court can endanger many lives. For anyone who thinks Adnan is a great guy, see his Wikipedia page – “In an October 2007 speech circulating on YouTube, Adnan shouted “Oh Quds brigades, strike a blow”, praised suicide bomber Hassan Abu Zeid, perpetrator of the Hadera Market bombing in which 7 people were murdered and 55 injured while shopping in a fruit and vegetable market, and asked the crowd “Who among you is the next suicide bomber?, Who among you will carry the next explosive belt? Who among you will fire the next bullets?” By the way, he went on a hunger strike while in a PA prison too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khader_Adnan)
Steve,
The issue is not whether or not Khader is a “great guy.” You and I might find his ideas or words repugnant. That is not the issue. The real issue is: was there was any evidence that necessitated his arrest and imprisonment? Clearly by Israel’s actions the answer to that question is no. How many others are Israel keeping imprisoned for reasons that have nothing to do with “national security?”
Rabbi Brant phrased it perfectly. The story of Khader Adnan, and the stories of the other 308 Palestinians currently imprisoned under Administrative Detention, do exactly that: make “a mockery of democracy and due process.”
I think that Addameer’s press release following the agreement that was reached yesterday phrases things nicely:
“Addameer maintains that the fact that Israeli officials negotiated the duration of his detention, in addition to agreeing to an early release, reveals that there were no grounds for his administrative detention in the first place. His administrative detention order, as in the cases of all other administrative detainees, is based on the alleged threat he poses to the “security of the State of Israel.” However, if Israeli officials agree that he will not be a threat on 17 April, as clear from today’s deal, he surely does not pose any threat today and his case provides further proof of Israel’s policy of arbitrary detention. Addameer reiterates its call for his immediate and unconditional release and the release of the 308 other administrative detainees.”
For a bit more, there is also an impressive statement by Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israeli-decision-release-palestinian-detainee-april-insufficient-2012-02-21
And Noam Sheizaf’s article in +972 is a good place to read about the nature of the Israeli military court system that governs Palestinians (but not Israelis) in the oPt. A conviction rate of 99.7%? ………..
(Addameer press release: http://www.addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=444)
(Noam Sheizaf’s +972 article: http://972mag.com/protesting-arrest-for-months-without-charges-khader-adnan-is-dying/35672/)
Just a standing ovation for courage and commitment to justice.
In your various posts on this subject, you repeatedly equivocate about whether you condemn Islamic Jihad and Adnan for supporting IJ egs. you “might not” agree with him, the issue isn’t “whether or not” he is a great guy, you aren’t going to “argue about” their merits. It is difficult to believe that your phraseology is unintentional (or at least doesn’t signify something important about your attitudes) and is in interesting juxtaposition to you vehement denunciations of Israel. I also wonder if, as you claim, it isn’t really about Adnan but the policy of administrative detention, why you have illustrated each of your posts with imagery that glorifies him. It actually is possible to be critical of administrative detention and recognize Islamic Jihad for violent, racist organization that it is.