Ahmed Abu Awaja's appeal concerning his rejection from serving as imam at Jabalya mosque in Jaffa invokes questions of constitutional significance, whose scope exceeds the claimant's case.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court will have to decide on whether it is legitimate for the Shin Bet to determine whether Abu Awaja is hired or not. If it rules that it is legitimate, it will have to determine the prominence that should be attributed to the Shin Bet's opinion, as it has been a key element in the decision to nix his application to the tender system established to select publicly-salaried imams.
In its defense, the state says that it had to disqualify Abu Awaja because he posed "a risk to the security of the state and to the security of the inhabitants of Jaffa." This, according to the Shin Bet position handed to the Ministry of Interior according to the law on the Shin Bet security service from 2002.
The law defines the Shin Bet's objectives in broad and general terms, including "to prevent illegal activity designed to compromise the security of the state, the procedures of democratic rule or its institutions."
The law also gives the Shin Bet specific authority to set directives concerning security clearance for jobs and positions. It further authorizes the Shin Bet to make a formal assessment on the security compatibility for applicants to various positions, or to positions "recognized as requiring security clearance."
But to the best of the public's knowledge, the position of an imam has not been recognized as "requiring security clearance." The court will have to take this into consideration in determining whether the Shin Bet has jurisdiction over this potentially sensitive position.
In fact, the issue is so important on the principle level, that the attorney general would do well to inform the court that he plans to attend the hearing.
Even if the court finds that the Shin Bet does have the formal authority, the case is nonetheless destined to invoke the question of whether this authority is used reasonably in the case at hand, in view of the basic law that pertains to human dignity and freedom of occupation.
Should the prosecutor demonstrate that the claimant was denied the position because of his political affiliation (with the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel) and not because he is a "threat to security," the court will have to take into account the extent of the applicability of the law that deals with equal opportunity at the workplace. That law prohibits employers from declining any person a position because of his "political outlook."
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
