Settlers Demand Shin Bet Head Cancel Orders Following Forged Intel Claims
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Fifteen settlers have demanded that Shin Bet head David Zini cancel administrative orders against them, citing claims of fabricated intelligence used by the agency. The settlers' appeal follows testimony from a former commander alleging the Shin Bet used false information to secure administrative arrests. They argue the orders are discriminatory, politically motivated, and lack due process. Attorney Moshe Polsky criticized the lack of legal recourse for those affected by these restrictions.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Fifteen settlers asked Shin Bet head David Zini to cancel administrative orders against them.
- A former commander alleged the Shin Bet used fabricated intelligence against Jewish settlers.
- Settlers claim administrative orders are discriminatory, politically motivated, and lack due process.
- Defense Minister Israel Katz had previously ordered an end to administrative arrests of settlers.
- Attorney Moshe Polsky criticized the lack of legal recourse for those affected by the orders.
Fifteen settlers, who have been subjected to administrative removal and restriction orders, have appealed to Shin Bet head David Zini demanding the cancellation of these orders. The appeal follows testimony from former Judea and Samaria District Special Patrol Unit commander Avishai Moalem on Channel 14, who alleged that the Shin Bet used fabricated intelligence and paraphrased information against Jewish settlers to secure administrative arrests, even when no offenses were committed. The settlers, represented by the Honenu organization, stated in their letter that the use of administrative orders against them has dramatically increased in recent years. They noted that even after Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered an end to administrative arrests of settlers, the Central Command continues to impose severe restrictions through administrative orders, bypassing due process and evidence. The settlers claim these orders are based on fabricated intelligence and paraphrases designed to incriminate them unjustly, rendering the orders even more illegitimate. They also argue that the use of these orders is discriminatory and politically motivated, asserting that they are denied freedom without any ability to prove their innocence and that such draconian measures are disproportionately applied to them. Attorney Moshe Polsky of Honenu criticized the use of these orders, highlighting that his clients often report no involvement in violent activities and have no idea why they are restricted. He emphasized that neither the restricted individuals nor their lawyers are given a proper legal avenue to contest the allegations, and that most cases do not even involve serious offenses. Polsky concluded by calling for Israel to operate as a Western democracy, where restrictions on suspects are imposed only through a fair process allowing them to effectively challenge the claims against them.
Mentioned
