I suppose I could be described as a law abiding citizen. If you're prepared to overlook two parking infringements perpetrated many years apart, my "rap sheet" is as white as the driven snow.
I have been summoned to court on three occasions, twice as a witness and once as a translator. I respect the law and zealously oppose attempts to manipulate it for ulterior purposes.
A case in point is the proposed judges selection committee bill tabled in the Knesset recently. The bill proposes changing the composition of the committee entrusted with the selection of judges serving on the Supreme Court
A lead article in the Economist last week defined the situation as follows:
"A battle is under way for the control of Israel’s judicial system."
It explains why a lot of people in Israel fear that a move is afoot to make our supreme court subservient to the Knesset.
I'm proud of Israel's judicial system, it's unique and without precedent. It evolved through four hundred years of Ottoman rule, thirty years of the British Mandate and sixty three years of Israeli sovereignty.
Aharon Barak defined Israel's legal system as part of Western legal culture. He is undoubtedly Israel's most distinguished and authoritative legal figure Professor Barak served as judge on Israel's Supreme Court for eleven years. During the last six years of his tenure he was president of the court.
Defining the relationship between the state and the law Aharon Barak says,
” The state's ideology is governed by the rule of law; the basic approach is secular, liberal, and rational. The social system aspires to solve problems by means of law and the courts; law is understood as a concept that ensures social progress and change. The individual has rights as well as obligations."
Perhaps the claim that the proposed change in the composition of the judges selection committee is designed to make our supreme court subservient to our parliament is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, if the legislation is approved it will give the Knesset members of the selection committee the power to appoint "compatible" judges. The Economist described the polarity of the Supreme Court versus the Knesset situation as follows:
"Whereas Israel’s voters have been moving to the nationalist and religious right, most of its top judges have clung to a more liberal and secular view of the world." The author amplifies his nutshell definition, "National-religious politicians have long been riled by the gap in attitudes between Israel’s top judges and the electorate. The Supreme Court is dominated by members of Israel’s 'white tribe' of secular liberal Jews of European origin who founded the state and provided its first elite. Only one of the court’s 13 judges is of Mizrahi, or eastern, origin, and he is set to retire. Another is Orthodox. By contrast, a growing proportion of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, belong to fast-growing communities that are by tradition Orthodox or originate from Arab or Muslim countries—or both."
The proposed selection committee bill is one of a number of legislative proposals tabled recently. All of them target a specific segment of the population. In January 2011, the Knesset endorsed a right-wing proposal to investigate some of Israel's best-known human rights organisations for allegedly slandering the IDF. The investigations would entail inquiries into the funding of several human rights groups that have criticised Israeli policies. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described the Knesset's decision as a "severe blow" to Israeli democracy, and critics labelled the policy "McCarthyist."
The coalition parties have been hounding human-rights groups, which consist mainly of secular left-wingers who often depend on funds from European governments and charities. The cabinet has just endorsed two bills to stop foreign governments from giving grants of more than $5,320 to Israeli human-rights organisations.
The annual budget of the largest Israeli human rights NGO – "B'Tselem" amounts to USD 2, 413,000. Foreign contributions make up half that sum
"Peace Now" operates with an annual budget of USD 940,000. Foreign contributions cover about a third of its budget.
Another bill proposes imposing a tax of 45 percent on contributions to these NGOs.
There are about 20 Israeli human rights and peace promoting NGOs. More than a dozen of them are sporadically active or quite dormant. However, the active NGOs rely on contributions from abroad. Denying them foreign funds won’t kill them off but it will restrict their activities.
At times they annoy me; nevertheless I defend their right to exist.
An editorial in Haaretz aptly sums up the NGO debate. “There is, however, nothing nefarious about public organisations in a democratic country receiving support from other democracies. The NGO funders are not enemies of Israel, and the groups themselves are not trying to subvert the state — only to correct what they see as its flaws. In the case of the illegal settlement construction often reported by Peace Now, or the human rights abuses by the Israeli army chronicled by B’Tselem, the government would be better off responding to rather than suppressing the criticism.”
The news media often refers to the bills collectively claiming they are part of a government “silencing policy.” The tabling of the bills has provoked considerable opposition from Knesset members and even in the cabinet. Legal advisers are warning that the bills are unconstitutional. Admittedly Israel doesn’t have a constitution; nevertheless some of the bills contradict extant legislation termed “Basic Laws.” Prime Minister Netanyahu wavers between supporting the bills and amending them. If need be he can put them “on hold” and threaten to unleash them whenever his critics become too vociferous. However, he is worried about efforts to “delegitimise” Israel. Efforts made by various organisations overseas. If the Knesset passes the "muzzling" bills, anti-Israel groups will be quick to quote them whenever they can.
A proposed amendment to the anti-libel law seeks to raise tenfold the ceiling for libel fines. Another bill threatens to ban Arab footballers who shy from singing our national anthem.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is one of the people who would like to emasculate the High Court of Justice. On Monday Yediot Ahronot columnist Attila Somfalvi said Lieberman threatened to pull his party out of the coalition government if Netanyahu complies with the High Court's demand to demolish the West Bank outpost Migron. Lieberman denied the report but said he opposed evacuating the outpost
Migron has had a checkered history. It is the largest unauthorized settlement in the West Bank and home to approximately 50 families. On August 2nd, 2011, The Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the state to dismantle the outpost by April 2012. This is not the first time the court has instructed the government to dismantle Migron. The current injunction came in response to a petition filed by the "Peace Now" organisation. Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch wrote, "There is no doubt that according to the law a settlement cannot be built on land privately owned by Palestinians."
Five years ago the Israeli Government, responding to a petition from Palestinians from two West Bank villages claiming to own some of the land upon which Migron is located, concluded that there was never any authorisation from any official granting its establishment. In addition the government admitted the outpost stands on private Palestinian land
According to the Sasson Report of 2005 more than USD 1 million of public funds were improperly invested in the outpost.
The Sasson Report was commissioned by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and was headed by the former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson. People who don't like the report, its conclusions and
Ms. Sasson point out that Talia Sasson was a candidate for the left wing Meretz party in the last Knesset elections. Sasson's political leanings didn’t affect her ability to investigate the legality of the settlements.
Netanyahu and Barak have already asked Judge Beinisch to give them an extension. I doubt if she will agree to put off the dismantling/evacuation of Migron. Benyamin Netanyahu could disregard the April deadline. It won't be the first time a prime minister has "forgotten" to comply with the court's instruction. Netanyahu certainly doesn't want a showdown with his more militant coalition partners and the Judah and Samaria Council over Migron. It seems Migron is quite a migraine. Neither does he want a confrontation with Judge Beinisch . .
Well it looks like I have managed to relate another depressing tale. A story of manipulative legislators trying to manacle a progressive judiciary.
Nevertheless, if we look between the lines it’s possible to see some positive aspects of the struggle between the legislative body and the judicial system.
Peace Now is a mainly Jewish organisation that petitioned the court to obtain justice for Palestinian land owners. It’s not clear how much Migron is built on Arab lands. Just the same the Palestinian petitioners believe an Israeli court can help them. The court has given the government an ultimatum it will find difficult to ignore.
Have a good weekend.
Beni 24th of November, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment