The first in a series of trials of Palestinian anti-Wall organizers had reached conclusion yesterday, when Adeeb Abu Rahmah, a taxi driver and protest organizer from the West Bank village of Bil'in was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment, a fine and twelve more months of suspended sentence.

Abu Rahmah's case relied heavily on the forced confessions of four minors arrested during night raids by Israeli soldiers. The four attested in court to being coerced into incriminating Abu Rahmah and other organizers during the course of their police investigations. They were also questioned unlawfully, without their parents being presents and, in some cases, late at night.

The sentencing followed a yearlong show-trial, held amidst a massive Israeli arrest campaign, that ended with a conviction of incitement, activity against the public order and entering a closed military zone.

This precedent-setting decision is the first time the Israeli military court ever convicts a Palestinian with a charge of incitement. The harsh sentence dramatically exceeds precedents set by the Israeli Supreme Court. In one such case a Jewish settler convicted of incitement to murder was only sentenced to eight months suspended sentence.

Having served his sentence in full, Abu Rahmah, who was arrested on July 10th, 2009, was supposed to be released immediately according to the decision. The prosecution, which hoped for an even harsher sentence, filed an appeal in the Military Court of Appeals, asking that Abu Rahmah remains incarcerated despite having served his sentence.

In a clearly politically motivated decision, Judge Lieutenant Colonel Benisho of the Military Court of Appeals decided to remand Abu Rahmah until a decision in the appeal, saying that “This is an appeal filed to set the proper punishment in a unique case regarding which a general punishment level has not yet been set." The judge chose to completely ignore the punishment level set forth by the supreme court in similar and even harsher cases.

Adv Gaby Lasky, Abu Rahmah's attorney, said that "A man remains imprisoned today, even despite having served his sentence fully. The only reason for that is the Military Prosecution's will to use legal procedures as a political tool to crack down on demonstrations, and the Military Court's cooperation with these ambitions. The Court of Appeals completely ignored Supreme Court precedents determining that once having served a sentence, a person should only be remanded in very extraordinary situations. This is not the case here."