in the Legal Clinics
at the University
Im Tirzu Report 5774
Dr. Shachar Golan
Assisted in Preparing the Report
Zionism – To Be or to Cease
Registered Organization 580471662
Tel: 072-2606235 Fax: 02-5323002
P.O.B. 53204 Jerusalem 9153100
Table of Contents
Who do the Clinics Represent in Court?
Are Those Represented Truly “Voiceless”?
Who are the Clinic Heads?
Which Organizations Partner for the Clinics’ Activities?
Conflict of Interest between the Clinics and the University
Content of the Legal Cases
1. The Clinic for Prisoners’ Rights and Reentry
2. The Clinic for Human Rights in Society
3. The Clinic for the Rights of the Arab-Palestinian Minority
Student Instruction - One Version in Hebrew, Another in English 19
Appendix A – Screen Shots
Appendix B – List of Organizations:
Appendix C – Examples of Appeals and Legal Activities
Appendix D – Student Council of the Faculty of Law, Meeting Records 44
“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
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
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
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.
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.
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
of being a member of a squad that
kidnapped and murdered the soldier Moshe Tamam
(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
(See Appendix C2 and C5).
3. Karim Younes, a security prisoner convicted of murdering IDF soldier Avraham
(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
C2 and C5).
5. Fouad Sultani, a security prisoner convicted of spying for Hezbollah
6. Alaa Al Bazian, a security prisoner convicted of shooting at civilians.
7. Ahmed al Haieb, a security prisoner convicted of spying for Hezbollah.
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
9. Mahmoud Magadba, a criminal prisoner convicted of a series of brutal rapes.
10. Muayad Bushnak, a criminal prisoner convicted of fraud.
Are Those Represented Truly
“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.
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.
Five years ago the Israel Prison Service
was able to list approximately 120 legal proceedings that Magadba filed