But it apparently did not go very well.
According to a report by the Associated Press, published in Haaretz, “Maguire, her face pale and twitching, called on Israel to cease what she called its ‘apartheid policy against the Palestinian people’.” But, the AP report noted, “The comments were unlikely to endear Maguire to the court”.
What happened next, AP said, was that “Justice Asher Grunis retorted [‘This is no place for propaganda’] and cut her off. The session ended soon thereafter”.
UPDATE: It was the seventh day of Maguire’s detention. She was briefly hospitalized two days earlier… Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab minority rights in Israel, which was representing Maguire, wrote in an press release [on Sunday 3 October] announcing its appeal to the Supreme Court that “Ms. Maguire fell ill on Friday evening 1 October following her [earlier] court hearing [in the Central District Court in Petah Tikvah] and was taken to a local hospital for tests. Ms. Maguire rested in the hospital for three hours before returning to her holding cell at Ben-Gurion International Airport. Detention officers allowed Ms. Maguire only partial access to her medical records and refused a phone call to her husband in Ireland. Ms. Maguire has now been in detention for six days”. This was published here.
AP added, in its report on the Supreme Court session, that “The government opposed a court-proposed compromise that Maguire be allowed to join the delegation for two days and then leave”. This report is published here.
The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday night that there are actually two deportation orders against Maguire, and that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had previously indicated, earlier this year, that it could not intervene.
According to the JPost report, “The state charged on Sunday that Nobel Peace Prize winner Maeread Maguire ‘took the law into her own hands’, when she flew to Israel last week, after having been explicitly told she would not be allowed entry into the country because of deportation orders against her which are in effect until 2020 … ‘The appellant chose to ignore the prohibition imposed on her from entering Israel in accordance with the deportation orders issued against her, and also chose to ignore two letters sent to the organizer of the delegation [of which Maguire was a member] by Foreign Ministry officials making it clear beyond a doubt that her entry to Israel would be refused’, wrote the state’s representative, attorney Hani Ofek. ‘Instead, the appellant decided to take the law into her own hands and establish facts on the ground by showing up at Ben-Gurion International Airport, apparently thinking that such an act would give her an advantage and lead to her being allowed to enter Israel contrary to the law and the deportation orders against her’.”
JPost says that according to the State Attorney’s argument, “The first deportation order against Maguire was issued on September 30, 2009, after she participated in the voyage of the Arion, a boat operated by ‘Free Gaza’ which was trying to break the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. The order was to be in force for 10 years. In June, 2010, a few days after the incident in which Israeli commandos forcibly stopped the Mavi Marmara on its way to Gaza, Maguire participated in the voyage of the [MV] Rachel Corrie, which also tried to break the blockade. She was brought to Israel and issued another deportation order, this one in effect until 2020 … In February, the organizer of the delegation, Liz Bernstein, informed the Israeli government of the planned trip [n.b.- the visit taking place now] and expressed concern that Maguire would not be allowed to enter the country. A foreign ministry official made it clear that she was right. ‘Ms. Maguire had deliberately chosen to take part in an illegal clash with Israeli authorities when she decided to embark on the so-called ‘Free Gaza’ boat’, the foreign ministry wrote. ‘The expedition had nothing to do with human rights or humanitarian assistance. Rather, it reinforced the iron grip on Gaza by Hamas… By disregarding international agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which confer on Israel the responsibility to secure Gaza waters [n.b. – this apparently refers not only to the Oslo Accords, but probably also to unpublished understandings — which Palestinian officials claim were imposed — made at the time of Israel’s unilateral “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005], and by attempting to ram their way through to terrorist-occupied Gaza…the boat’s crew have infringed on Israeli and international law. This unfortunate, self-imposed situation now makes it impossible for us to intervene in favor of changing Ms. Maguire’s legal position in the eyes of Israeli law’. In July, after the second incident involving the [MV] Rachel Corrie, Bernstein again asked the Foreign Ministry to help obtain an entry visa for Maguire. Once again, the ministry refused”. This is reported here.
This information is likely to be a more serious detriment to Maguire’s case than her comments about Israel’s policies which would probably be regarded as a democratic right, though they might well have been annoying and irritating to the Supreme Court justices [who cleared military-administered Gaza sanctions with a single admonition, not to allow a “humanitarian crisis” to develop].
A later JPost article, published on Monday, reports that “The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that it did not believe Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire’s claim that she did not know about the deportation order issued against her earlier this year for 10 years when she arrived in Israel last week. Supreme Court President Dorit Benisch proposed that the state allow her to remain in the country until Wednesday when a series of meetings she was scheduled to attend was scheduled to end. Benisch along with Justice Asher Grunis indicated that for ‘overall’ reasons, which they did not explain, the state are to consider that option. Nevertheless, Benisch added that she was certain Maguire knew about the deportation order, and did not come to Israel in good faith or with ‘friendly intentions’. The hearing recessed while the state representative, Attorney Hani Ofek, consulted with her superiors about the courts proposal. Before leaving she said she doubted the state would agree because of the issue of Israel’s sovereignty and its right to prevent those who it does not want to enter the country. Benisch replied that the court was in no way ‘challenging Israel’s sovereignty’. ‘Do you think that we would cast doubt on Israel’s sovereignty because of this woman, (a reference to Maguire)’, Benisch continued”… This is published here.
YNet reported, somewhat differently, that “The judges were in consensus that the Nobel laureate’s motives were ‘impure’, but reserved their final ruling for a later date. Several uneasy moments were felt in court, as it became evident that no interpreter was present for the hearing, for Maguire’s benefit. ‘This should have been taken care of. If she appears for a hearing she should be able to understand it’, Beinish said. Maguire told the court she came to Israel without knowing that there was a 10-year deportation order pending against her and that she was ‘shocked to learn of it’. The court made it clear that it did not believe Maguire was unaware [of a] deportation order issued against her. Beinish noted that ‘the claim of ignorance sounds very artificial’, while Justice Asher Grunis added that in his opinion Maguire knew of the order, but ‘arrived anyway, as an act of defiance’. ‘This is not an innocent visit’, said Beinish. ‘The order stands. With all due respect, we will not be questioning (the State’s) sovereignty because of this lady’ … The Northern Irish peace activist added that she arrived in Israel as part of a group that believes in peace and called on Israeli authorities to ‘stop the apartheid, stop the siege on Gaza’. Justice Grunis interrupted Maguire, ‘This is no place for propaganda’. Attorney Oran Cohen [n.b. Orna Kohn], for Maguire, asked the court to consider leaving the deportation order, but allowing the Nobel laureate to see he current visit through. Cohen, who represents Maguire on behalf of Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, told Ynet that her organization has appealed the deportation decision since it is obviously wrong, regardless of whether she knew of the deportation order. ‘When such an order is considered, one must take into consideration not only Maguire’s rights, but the rights of the people waiting to meet her. I hope the court allows her to finish her visit’.” This YNet report is posted here.
The Court’s decision on Maguire’s deportation could be expected later Monday night or tomorrow.
+972 Magazine (named after Israel’s international telephone calling code) wrote, in a summary of articles it finds interesting in the Hebrew press, that “Ma’ariv publishes a hateful screed against Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mairead Maguire, accusing her of anti-Semitism, because she thinks Hamas should not be included in the EU’s list of terrorist organizations, and because (Ma’ariv falsely claims) she doesn’t care about human rights violations in other parts of the world”. This was published here.
A full translation of the Ma’ariv article was later circulated by the English Desk of the Government Press Office. The title of this article, apparently, is “Laureate of Hate”… The Maariv article accuses Maguire of comparing Israel to the Nazis, when it comes to the children of Gaza. And it calls Maguire not only an “enemy of the free world”, but also says she is one of the “useful idiots” who “tells bald-faced lies”. Maguire {and the other useful idiots, according to this article} “talk about a blockade, a humanitarian crisis, children, but ignore the full and real picture. They side with the anti-Semitic Hamas … Despite all that, Israel sends in hundreds of trucks laden with supplies every week. The Israeli blockade is the necessary minimum, given the terrifying regime that has seized control of the Gaza Strip”. You could almost think that those hundreds of trucks are donations from the people and government of Israel [though they are really paid for and organized by donors, or by an order sent through the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah…]