Politicization  

in the Legal Clinics  

at the University  

of Haifa

October 2013

Im Tirzu Report 5774

2

Dr. Shachar Golan

Editing:

Ronen Shoval

Assisted in Preparing the Report

Amit Barak

Matan Peleg

Alon Schvartzer

Adi Shenkman

Graphics

Yehudit Zolotarevsky

Im Tirzu 

Zionism – To Be or to Cease

Registered Organization 580471662

Tel: 072-2606235 Fax: 02-5323002

P.O.B. 53204 Jerusalem 9153100

3

Table of Contents

Summary 5

Introduction 8

Who do the Clinics Represent in Court? 

9

Are Those Represented Truly “Voiceless”? 

10

Who are the Clinic Heads? 

12

Which Organizations Partner for the Clinics’ Activities? 

13

Conflict of Interest between the Clinics and the University 

14

Content of the Legal Cases 

15

  1. The Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and Reentry 

15

  2. The Clinic for Human Rights in Society 

16

  3. The Clinic for the Rights of the Arab-Palestinian Minority 

17

Student Instruction - One Version in Hebrew, Another in English  19

Conclusion 22

Recommendations 23

Appendices 25

Appendix A – Screen Shots 

26

Appendix B – List of Organizations: 

29

Appendix C – Examples of Appeals and Legal Activities 

38

Appendix D – Student Council of the Faculty of Law, Meeting Records  44

4

5

Summary: 

“Give the voiceless a voice. This is the essence of what the clinics offer law 

and social change”. The legal clinics of the Faculty of Law in the University 

of Haifa chose these impressive words to begin the summary of their 

charter. This report will cover the activities of the legal clinics and will study 

if they truly promote their stated goal, or if they are used to promote other 

activities, which are not worth of an academic framework. 
The study began following a string of harsh complaints received by ‘Im 

Tirzu’ from students that felt taken advantage of and hurt. To get down to 

the root of the issue, hundreds of documents, appeals and verdicts were 

reviewed. In addition, the journalistic coverage of the clinics as well as the 

clinics own publications were reviewed. 
The data in the report leads to a harsh conclusion: the law clinics at the 

University of Haifa are abusing their intended purpose. Instead of “giving 

the voiceless a voice”, the clinics have become branches of post-Zionist 

and anti-Zionist organizations, who strive to promote the delegitimization 

of Israel around the world. The most prominent of these organizations is 

‘Adalah’, but among the organizations one can also list ‘Taayush’, ‘Karameh’, 

‘Mossawa’, ‘Physicians for Human Rights’, and the ‘Association for Civil 

Rights in Israel’. 
Many of these organizations are funded by the non-Israeli organization the 

‘New Israel Fund’, and its operational branch ‘Shatil’, as well as funds supplied 

by foreign governments. At the head of these clinics stand individuals who 

belong to these same organizations, and are occasionally even employed 

by them directly. Moreover, the clinics don’t only function as stamps of 

approval for these organization, but also act as a financial pipeline for 

monetary expenses, as a human resources section, and as an administrative 

base for their legal activities. 
An examination of the legal activities of the clinics reveals a branched 

system of appeals and claims, the vast majority of which are derived from an 

anti-Zionist perception. For instance, the Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and 

6

Reentry has a large concentration of aid for Israeli-Arab security prisoners 

that have committed heinous acts of terrorism and espionage; the Clinic for 

Human Rights in Society is revealed as a dual-purpose system that works 

on the one hand to curtail Jewish building in Acre on the one hand and to 

strengthen Arab citizens in the city and fund the upkeep of their houses 

by the state on the other hand. Similarly, a parallel clinic ran a campaign 

in favor of an illegal Arab settlement and against the development of an 

adjacent Jewish settlement. There is also the Clinic for Arab-Palestinian 

minority Rights, which fights the confidentiality of security investigations 

and the security checking procedures at the airport. All under academic 

cover and with academic funding. 
The research also shows problematic management in the field of disclosure 

towards students and the Israeli public. The internet website which is 

meant to supply a complete picture of the clinics’ activities makes sure to 

downplay the parts of the clinics in the anti-Zionist activities, creating the 

impression that they are motivated purely by social goals. A more thorough 

investigation reveals significant differences between the Hebrew version 

of the website and the English version, which is aimed mainly at donors. 

For instance, the English website raises issues such as “Promoting minority 

rights on the national front” and “Arab minority rights with regards to land 

and property”, which do not appear on the Hebrew website. 
During registration for the clinics, students are given lacking information, 

which harms their ability to fully understand what type of system they 

are joining. Students who register in order to earn academic credits find 

themselves captive in a mechanism that promotes distinct political values. 

For instance, students in the clinics are forced to represent a murdering 

terrorist or assist a serial rapist, when above them looms the academic 

authority of the authoritarian and experienced clinic head, facing the 

student making his first professional steps. All these transform the clinics 

from a social and educational project to a rampant, one-sided and political 

indoctrination mechanism. The clinics represent an academia that is 

debate-free and bereft of all pluralism or thinking alternatives, wherein the 

student that is seeking academic recognition must at times act in complete 

opposition to his own conscience. 
In addition to promoting anti-Israeli nationalistic goals, a previous report

1

 

shows that an initiative to open a clinic that would protect the legal rights of 

Israelis facing lawsuits accusing them of being “war criminals” was blocked. 

The reason for the denial was that the issue was “political and controversial”.
In conclusion, the data shows that the clinics in their current configuration 

most definitely do not “give the voiceless a voice”. In reality, they promote an 

anti-Zionist agenda, assist radical nationalistic organizations and elements 

7

that fight (even violently) against Israel as a Jewish democratic state. The 

clinics attempt to hide their misconduct from the public, which harms the 

students by taking advantage of their innocence.  
The results of the report are harsh. We expect the oversight authorities 

to rethink the legitimacy of the activity in the University of Haifa’s legal 

clinics, and that in the nature of protecting the students and their basic 

right, to increase the oversight over the rest of the clinics. We will discuss 

this at greater lengths in the Recommendations chapter. 

8

Introduction:

Legal clinics are practical workshops within the framework of the Faculty 

of Law, whose goal is to allow students to experience legal activities even 

before they finish their studies. With time, the clinics evolved into an 

academic tool that harnesses the students for social goals. The clinics are 

run by experts who belong to the university faculty or social organizations 

who are interested in receiving aid. Students register for the clinic and 

act according to the instructions of the clinic head, and in return receive 

university credits. Every law faculty in Israel has a clinics program. This 

report focuses on the program at the University of Haifa. 
On their internet website, the clinics vow to “Give the voiceless a voice”. 

The purpose of this report is to study the activities of the clinics and the 

correlation between their stated intent and their actions. 
To determine the true nature of the clinics, we studied several research 

questions: Who head the clinics, what organizations work alongside the 

clinics, who the clinics represent, and whether those being represented 

truly are “voiceless”. Special emphasis was placed on the question of what 

are the projects being promoted by the clinics and whether they can be 

associated with a concise ideological agenda. Finally, we asked how the 

clinics represent themselves to the public, and whether there is a match 

between their displayed public image and their true activities. 

9

Who do the Clinics Represent in Court?

An examination of the people represented by the clinics reveals a reliable 

picture of the purpose of the clinics’ activities. During the preparation of the 

report, use was made of legal databases allowing access to the cases the clinics 

were involved in. The case list shows an obvious an unequivocally clear trend. 
Out of over 20 legal cases the clinics have run since 2009, only two dealt 

with Jews. In the rest of the cases, the clinics represented Arabs against 

the state (in one case the person being represented wasn’t even an Israeli 

citizen). The situation in the Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and Reentry is 

particularly severe. In Israel today there are over 10,000 prisoners, out of 

which a mere 132 (approximately one percent) are Israeli Arab security 

prisoners. Out of 10 cases handled by the Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and 

Reentry, eighty (80 percent) assisted security prisoners, the large part of 

whom are terrorist murderers. Here is a breakdown of the cases handled by 

the Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and Reentry:
1.   Walid Daka, a security prisoner convicted

2

 of being a member of a squad that 

kidnapped and murdered the soldier Moshe Tamam

3

 (See Appendix C1).

2.   Salah Saeed, a security prisoner that participated in a terrorist shooting which 

resulted in the death of IDF soldier Yair Turgeman

4

 (See Appendix C2 and C5).

3.   Karim Younes, a security prisoner convicted of murdering IDF soldier Avraham 

Brumberg

5

 (See Appendix C2).

4.   Raed Salahot, a security prisoner convicted of attempted murder, as well as 

aiding the enemy in time of war; and shooting at a police station

6

 (See Appendix 

C2 and C5).

5.   Fouad Sultani, a security prisoner convicted of spying for Hezbollah

7

 (See 

Appendix C2).

6.   Alaa Al Bazian, a security prisoner convicted of shooting at civilians.

8

7.   Ahmed al Haieb, a security prisoner convicted of spying for Hezbollah.

9

 

8.   Ismail Tarabin, a Palestinian from Gaza who was arrested after illegal residence 

in Israel. In this case the clinic represents a person who isn’t even an Israeli 

citizen.

10

 

9.   Mahmoud Magadba, a criminal prisoner convicted of a series of brutal rapes.

11

10. Muayad Bushnak, a criminal prisoner convicted of fraud.

12

10

Are Those Represented Truly 

“Voiceless”?

“Give the voiceless a voice. This is the essence of what the clinics offer law and 

social change”. So the legal clinics describe their activities on their internet 

website. But instead of “giving the voiceless a voice”, the clinics chose to 

provide a megaphone to anti-Zionist elements with access to the media and 

the legal system that is unrivaled by that of the regular citizen. The people 

represented by the clinics are given a favorable review by a newspaper with 

a large circulation. The choice to deal specifically with these cases directly 

affects the populations and sectors that need the assistance the most. Below 

are listed some of the more prominent cases:

 

†

Security prisoner Walid Daka had a relationship with Gideon Levi and 

author Sami Michael and was the subject of a column in Ha’aretz.

13

 An 

article written by Gideon Levi presented a 1,500 word letter Walid Daka 

wrote to his “friend” (according to Levi) Azmi Bishara. Daka, convicted 

of murdering a soldier, is described by Levi as “A former painter, who 

worked in Tel Aviv and Eilat, who plastered the walls of the Sonesta Taba, 

was imprisoned at the age of 24, and is already 44 years old”. Gideon 

Levi says that he had already met Daka in 2001 and had a relationship 

with him by post. In addition, in one of the appeals the clinic filed it was 

written that “The appellant (Daka) and the author Michael have forged 

over the years a friendly relationship, and he has even enjoyed several 

visits from him”. Is this the “voiceless” person that needs the clinic to 

shout for him?

 

†

Security prisoner Alaa Al Bazian who was also represented by the 

clinic for prisoners’ rights also appears in the article. The spy Bazian 

is described by Levi as “The blind prisoner, Alaa Al Bazian, who isn’t 

allowed to touch his family”.

 

†

Serial rapist Mahmoud Magadba, who was represented by the clinic 

has become a serial appellant.

14

 Five years ago the Israel Prison Service 

was able to list approximately 120 legal proceedings that Magadba filed