Powered by WebAds

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Lisa Goldman's Haaretz interview

I blogged the story of Lisa Goldman's interrogation by the Police's International and Serious Crimes Unit several days ago. Lisa has an article in Haaretz's English edition this weekend, in which she discusses what happened. It does seem that the law is being applied selectively in her case. Here's why Lisa would have been Canada's problem had she been kidnapped, not Israel's:
The ISCU officers also claimed, as have many others, that I endangered Israeli security because I could have been abducted by Hezbollah - which would then force the state to barter political prisoners in exchange for my freedom. The example of Elhanan Tennenbaum, a high-ranking former officer in the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Corps, who was abducted by Hezbollah in 2000, is frequently bandied about. Somehow, no one has remembered a more recent precedent: Daniel Sharon, an Israeli with German citizenship, was detained for three weeks in October by the Lebanese police. His release was obtained by the German authorities, without Israel's involvement.

Elhanan Tennenbaum was abducted from Dubai, and then taken to Lebanon. Dubai is not classified as an enemy country; in fact, many Israelis travel there regularly. Furthermore, Tennenbaum is alleged to have been captured while committing a criminal act - namely, setting up a drug deal. Most importantly, the Israeli authorities needed Tennenbaum released in order to discover what secrets he might have revealed to the enemy.
And as Lisa points out in a post on her blog, Tenenbaum only had one passport: Israel's.

Anyone think the police will go after Channel 10 for sending Lisa? Don't hold your breath waiting.


At 10:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Carl: Sorry to respond to this post a bit on the late side, but as you have in your previous post on this subject, you have raised some valid and interesting points.

Like you, I am uncomfortable with the appearance of the law being applied in a selective manner. As such, I ask the following questions:

How do we as citizens (not privy to the details of the government's case) determine if, in fact, it is a case of selective implementation? Is it possible that there are elements to these three trips which make them distinctive from the other alleged cases?

Could you explain how/why argument of selective prosecution could offset the right of the government to decide to enforce a previously unenforced law? I understand why the precedent to not indict may lend a false sense of safety-against-prosecution to citizens, but does that "sense" actually create a legal hurdle against such indictments?

Re: Channel 10 -- this is something about which I have also been wondering! The situation also begs the question of an employer's responsibility in such situations....

Thanks for sharing your nuanced perspective -- your sentiments are most thought-provoking.


Post a Comment

<< Home