13 thoughts on “Israeli Supreme Court Affirms Deportation of Nobel Peace Laureate, Maguire – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Are you reporting the news or are you rewriting them ?
    from ynet (hebrew)
    השופטים קבעו כי מכיוון שמגווייר בחרה לעשות “דין לעצמה” והגיעה לישראל למרות איסור הכניסה נגדה, ובמקום לפנות בדרכים החוקיות לביטול הצו, הרי שאין להתערב בהחלטה שלא להכניסה לארץ. עם זאת, הם מתחו ביקורת על המדינה, וכתבו שטוב היתה עושה אם היתה מאפשרת למגוויר לסיים את ביקורה בישראל.

    Judges say Nobel laureate ‘took law into own hands’, entered Israel while fully aware of deportation order. Ruling determines ‘court cannot give seal of approval; decision remains in government’s hands’
    However, the judges noted, the State of Israel should have accepted their proposal and allowed Maguire to complete the remaining 48 hours of her scheduled visit, while releasing her on bail and obliging her to leave the country at the end of the allotted timeframe.

    the entire article is here:

    Not quite as you report it.

    1. The Hebrew you quoted does not say she was “fully aware” of the ruling against her. It merely says there was a ruling prohibiting her entry to Israel. In fact this is what the gov’t & lower court falsely claimed. She wasn’t “fully aware” of the deportation order & in fact never received it. And in fact it’s terribly ironic for a state to claim that Maguire “took the law into her own hands” when this selfsame state often ignores both its own laws and international laws when it finds it convenient to do so. Not only that, this self same Supreme Court when it finds it convenient refuses to make rulings on security cases for years or ignores the fact that the IDF deliberately flouts its own explicit rulings prohibiting it from killing unarmed Palestinians when there are other means to aprehend them. When it’s convenient then peace activists “flout the law.” When it’s inconvenient, the Court becomes deaf, dumb & blind. Nice work if you can get it.

      I did not link to nor did I read the Ynet report. I linked to a Haaretz English lang. rpt. which you may read if you wish to be fair. How can I know what’s in the Ynet story if I didn’t read it? The Haaretz rpt does not contain much of the info in the Ynet story.

      When you wish to dispute what I write you will quote the passage you’re disputing so I know what you’re talking about. I said nothing that diverges from anything in the article you quoted above. If you claim I did, you have to not the discrepancy not merely believe that we’re all clairvoyant & can read yr mind. Thank God we can’t.

  2. This is just the slippery slide down the hill, adding yet another embarrassment to what Israeli’s call “democracy”. Shouldn’t this decision raise alarms….one can’t criticize Israel! It’s shameful. Not allowing Noam Chomsky now this eminent peace activist. I would say the centre is not holding and the world view of Israel just worsens day by day.

  3. Richard, the hebrew version says “בחרה לעשות דין לעצמה”
    the translation for that would be , she knew about it and decided to act regardless.

    the supreme court ruled based on facts, entry restriction forms, were presented to the deportees at the time of deportation. every deportee signed it, including McGuire, the supreme court dealt only with the procedural aspect of her case, aka reviving an entry restriction form and violating it.
    shabak or mossad or IDF had nothing to do with this specific decision (they had a lot to do with the original decision to prevent her from entering the state of Israel for 10 years) it’s not remotely resemble what you wrote, the court didn’t state his opinion bout the blockade (at this time).

    as for haaretz, haarets is well known for altering the facts, it’s not the first time.

    1. the translation for that would be , she knew about it and decided to act regardless.

      Wrong, & don’t attempt to finesse Hebrew translations by faking what they really say. The literal translation is precisely as translated in the Haaretz English version: “she chose to make law for herself,” which is the equivalent of she took the law into her own hands. This says nothing whatsoever about what she knew or believed to be the case regarding the alleged order barring her entry. Don’t toy w. me on such issues. If you’re not precise I’ll hand your head to you here.

      entry restriction forms, were presented to the deportees at the time of deportation

      That’s again what the State claims, not a proven fact. Maguire denies this & I believe her because the State in similar situations has shown itself willing to fudge & even lie. So tell me, does the State have a signed English language statement fr. Maguire that she received her deportation order (in similar situations it produces a Hebrew language document & compels non Hebrew speakers to sign it not know the content–which is blatanly illegal)? Does it have video showing her received such an English language deportation order? What evidence does it have? It has the word of a government flunky who claims that he served the order on her but can offer no other supporting evidence. Sorry, that won’t suffice.

      haarets is well known for altering the facts

      You’re a liar. I demand that you provide proof for this statement. I warn you: if you lie here you will not remain here. If you make a statement, you support it. If you can’t, you don’t make it. If you do, you’re gone.

    2. @AriJay
      I am quite certain Mairead did not sign any deportation order after she was kidnapped by IDF commandos in international waters in early June. She was forced to Israel at gunpoint and so did not concede she had entered Israel illegally, as the deportation order claimed. Mairead is a deeply religious woman and would never sign such a false declaration. As soon as she is home in Belfast I will ask her to confirm she never sign the deportation order. If I am mistaken I will be sure to post here.

      I know many of the passengers on board the boats of the Freedom Flotilla, and none of them signed the deportation document presented to them by Israeli authorities. It is something we always agree on before we board any boat headed for Gaza.

  4. Richard, this is not about hebrew teaching, but in hebrew “עשתה דין לעצמה” means she took the law into her hands, as the subject was she acted against an entry restriction verdict that was issued, that what it means. she knew about it and acted against it.

    apparently there were two entry refusal form issued, one on 7 July 09 and the other on 5 june 10, both forms were signed as required by the issuing bureaucrat, both in Hebrew (i assume, and there is nothing illegal about it, it’s based on the law of the land) were presented to her, and explanation offered. and as noted on them she refused to sign them or to listen to any explenation about tham.

    as i heard a lecture of Dr. Paul Larudee who stated they all refused to sign any papers given to them, i actually believe the state version.

    I’m sure that all those interviews were filmed, and if required the state of Israel would be able to produce the required evidence.

    your comment about me being a liar is a disgrace, as you stated many times we are posting here in good faith, so please refrain from such accusations. if you want to know why i am stating something, you can simply ask and i will provide you with an explanation. I’m sure you don’t want people to call you names, so please behave accordingly.

    as for your question why did i stated that haaretz is known to be very inaccurate in its reporting, please goto the following link and you’ll find many examples:

    1. this is not about hebrew teaching, but in hebrew “עשתה דין לעצמה” means she took the law into her hands

      It certainly isn’t about Hebrew teaching as I don’t need lessons & that is precisely how I translated it. But you’re doing a gloss on the translation which isn’t warranted. The Hebrew phrase doesn’t mean that she acknowledged she’d received a deportation order & went ahead & entered Israel anyway. It means that she didn’t follow the government’s prescribed process of filing an appeal & didn’t go through the bureaucratic process as the government maintains she should have. That last sentence doesn’t mean at all what that you claim that Hebrew phrase to mean.

      both forms were signed as required by the issuing bureaucrat, both in Hebrew (i assume, and there is nothing illegal about it, it’s based on the law of the land) were presented to her, and explanation offered. and as noted on them she refused to sign them or to listen to any explenation about tham.

      Look, I know a lot more than you about how Israeli immigration & security officials deal w. undesirables. When Jared Malsin was deported he was cajoled into signing a document in Hebrew which he did not understand and whose explanation deliberately misled him. He was forced onto the next plane out of Israel even though he was lied to about what was in the document & had no idea it entitled Israel to legally deport him.

      So the fact that you claim an explanation of a Hebrew lang. document was offered to her has no credibility for me. If a gov’t wishes someone to sign a document they should offer the document in their native language. If they don’t have the document prepared in that language they should get someone in the gov’t to translate it. I would never sign any legal document in a language I didn’t understand. How do I know that what the official is claiming is in the doc is really there? And given the Israeli gov’t’s credibility why should I??

      if required the state of Israel would be able to produce the required evidence.

      The gov’t should produce them publicly to prove their version of the events. If they don’t that offers even more reason to disbelieve them.

      I find Haaretz to be far & away the most credible & reliable Israeli news source. Yediot is often excellent as well, but Haaretz more reliably so. I have read so many times fr. right wing commenters here precisely the same accusation & never offered w. any proof. So to avoid me getting angry with you in future, offer specific proof with links when you make such claims in future. But I warn you that I don’t accept as evidence known propaganda site. I haven’t checked the site you offered yet, but I’d be willing to bet it is such a site. Find a credible site if you want to offer evidence. 7th Eye is a credible media criticism site which I respect a great deal. If they confirmed what you claimed I’d respect it. But I doubt they do.

  5. Richard, after posting the previous post i read Mary Hughes-Thompson who states exactly what Dr. Paul Larudee stated, this tells us the an entry restriction form was issued and presented, and the fact that she was unwilling to sign it, isn’t matter what so ever, if it was done in front of two witnesses and i am sure it was.

  6. Richard, i was able to find the court verdict regarding the subject please read for yourself what type of evidence were presented to the court:
    1. a statement form a member of the Irish embassy in israel, (the ambassador deputy) that states that she is aware of the entry restriction, that was issued.
    2. apparently in Feb 2010 McGuire was trying to find out via a lawyer if any entry restriction exist.

    please look at the court verdict in this link

    1. That’s just what I wrote earlier: you have a gov’t flunky claiming he served an order on her. That’s not enough. I don’t believe what any Israeli gov’t flunky says even if they say it in a court of law. I can’t tell you the amt of lying I’ve discovered fr. Israeli military, police & bureaucrats even under oath. She says she didn’t sign it & never received an explanation of it. I believe her. And even if she was seeking to discover whether there was such a restriction against her it doesn’t mean that restriction was legally & properly served. It just means the gov’t filed the order. I’m sorry to tell you but your gov’t has a very shoddy record of abiding by the rule of law, even it’s own laws let alone international law. So the onus is on you & yr gov’t to prove that you’ve been transparent in these matters.

  7. Like many of us, Mairead is most likely willing to accept that Israel is so fearful of her that it refuses to allow her into its so-called democratic state. Like most of us she believes she has every right to visit Palestine. If not for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, including land adjacent to other states, she would be able to enter from Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. On the two dates cited above, she was forcibly taken to Israel and then charged with being there illegally. By signing the documents presented to her, she would be agreeing to something written in a language foreign to her, admitting she had entered Israel illegally. None of us would ever sign such a document, even if we trusted the Israelis that it said what they claimed it said. Mairead is a woman of conscience and principle, and she had every right to refuse to sign such a sham document, and to refuse to concede that Israel had any legal basis for attacking and abducting her.

  8. What is Israel so afraid of? I wonder if I would be allowed entry because I support the Palestinian cause – is this democracy? They are acting like children, their values are plummeting and the whole world is watching so it is counterproductive for Israel. You can split hairs forever but really treating her so shabbily and not allowing her to stay is bad manners. Why is it that you twist the law when it suits you but ignore and rationalize it when it doesn’t?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link