• Published 00:00 28.08.07
  • Latest update 00:00 28.08.07

A typical right-wing heckler

If there is one thing that obligates any decent and enlightened person to rise up against Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, it is his basic approach to human rights. Of all the disputes between him and Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, this is the most substantial, even if it is the most hidden.

By Ehud Asheri Tags: Daniel Friedmann

"The potential for a clash between the need for self-defense and the risk of violating human rights is great. The High Court of Justice is the institution that can protect human rights during truly difficult periods. For residents of the territories who have been harmed by the government, there is no other address" (Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, in an interview with the Israeli business daily Globes).

"When the reactor was bombed in Iraq, human rights were also harmed. But this doesn't mean that the High Court should have intervened in the government's considerations as to whether or not to bomb the Iraqi reactor. With regard to the separation fence, it should have been possible to consider compensation rather than altering the fence's route ... issuing injunctions delays the work in a way that can harm national security" (Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, in an interview with Haaretz).

If there is one thing that obligates any decent and enlightened person to rise up against Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, it is his basic approach to human rights. Of all the disputes between him and Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, this is the most substantial, even if it is the most hidden.

Until late August, one could have believed that the confrontation between the two was over the division of power between the judiciary and executive branches: Friedmann is trying to limit the powers of the Supreme Court and its president, while Beinisch is trying to preserve them. But Friedmann's interview with Haaretz let the cat out of the bag: Behind his package of reforms hides a distorted concept of the essence of Israeli democracy in general, and its relationship to Israeli Arabs and the territories in particular. The justice minister thinks that democracy is simply the realization of the majority's decisions. What bothers him is that the Supreme Court uses its power to protect Arabs, and does so at the expense of the interests of the Jewish majority.

If I was under the impression that Friedmann, despite his other shortcomings, was at least a liberal in his views, he corrected my mistake. It turns out that his real problem with the Supreme Court is that it is too fond of Arabs. True, Friedmann does not make this assertion outright, but occasionally a statement escapes him and gives away his political bias. For example, regarding his proposed bill to limit the terms of Supreme Court presidents, he says, "You have to see who supports it and who opposes it. Meretz and the Arabs took the side of the court and opposed the law. Perhaps that suits Haaretz's line."

Why does he mention the bill's opponents? What is that if not a variation on the average right-wing talkback, which lumps the court together with "Meretz and the Arabs" in one parcel, which it wraps in Haaretz? What is that if not a scathing declaration that the Supreme Court is a bastion of the anti-patriotic, bleeding-heart left? The problem is that this populist nonsense is being uttered by the justice minister of the State of Israel, and not the racist talkbacker on the news Web site Ynet.

Or take the demagogic statement cited above, this time regarding the High Court's intervention in the route of the separation fence. Beinisch (and the presidents who preceded her) believes that the role of the court is to strike a balance between Israeli security interests and any infringement of the basic rights of the Palestinian residents. Friedmann does not dispute that the fence's route can harm their lives, he just thinks that the harm is always justified, in every case, by virtue of the decision having been made by the majority. The rights of the residents are of absolutely no interest to him. According to him, the High Court should not have intervened in the issue in the first place, just as it did not intervene in the bombing of the reactor in Iraq, during which "human rights were damaged" as well.

One can hardly believe that the speaker is an Israel Prize laureate in law. Friedmann does not make the basic distinction between belligerent activity on enemy territory and non-belligerent activity in occupied territory for which Israel is responsible. After all, these are two separate sets of laws. What is permissible in a war situation (for example, to kill an enemy soldier) is not permitted in a non-war situation (for example, to kill an enemy soldier who has fallen into captivity). Friedmann should also know that international law obligates a country to take full responsibility for an occupied population and ensure all its human rights. What on earth is the connection between that and harming innocent people in the course of an operational activity, and on enemy territory at that? And when has the High Court intervened in operational activities?

In order to prove how enlightened he is, Friedmann proposes to "think about compensation" instead of issuing injunctions "that delay the work in a manner that can harm national security." Even if one accepts his unrealistic idea that a person can be compensated for the destruction of the fabric of his life, who will decide on the amount of compensation? And to whom can the Palestinian appeal? After all, the High Court of Justice is blocked to him. In short, his proposal is not serious.

The rules of justice don't interest the justice minister when it comes to Arabs. He doesn't understand why the "neighbor policy" (in which Palestinian civilians are ordered to assist troops in arresting wanted militants), which deliberately endangers innocent Palestinians, is fundamentally objectionable, and why the High Court found it proper to outlaw it. He is opposed also to the court's unanimous decision to overturn the "intifada law," which prevented Palestinians from demanding compensation for damages incurred during non-belligerent Israel Defense Forces activity. From his point of view, they are a hostile population that doesn't deserve any compensation. Nor does he think that blocking the right of Israeli Arabs to be reunited with family members from the territories is a blatant violation of human and civil rights. He sees it as a national-security problem, and one in which the High Court is not permitted to intervene.

Minister Friedmann's cumulative positions regarding Arabs do not leave room for doubt. The man does not understand the essence of democracy and its basic obligation to defend human rights. How clear, lucid and enlightened Dorit Beinisch sounds compared to him, when she states simply: "The High Court is the institution that can protect human rights during truly difficult periods. There is no other address."

  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 25. 0 0
    #17 Victor - What are you reading?
    • Rick
    • 28.08.07
    • 21:40

    Hi Victor- The treaty between Israel and Jordan in no way recognized or granted sovereignty over the WB to Israel. It does, howvere, drop Jordan's claims to the area, undermining the Israeli argument that WB residents should be forced into Jordan. The preamble to the treaty states that it is "aiming at the achievement of a just, lasting peace in the Middle East based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in their entirety." See the full treaty at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/isrjor.html. UN Security Councel resolution 242 plainly calls for the "[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. (1967). See http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement With all due respect, Victor, your assertion about the 1994 treaty, is misleading and unfounded. Plese read the treaty before citing it for points it does not contain. Peace, Rick

  • 24. 0 0
    #16 Pace306 -quit distorting history
    • Rick
    • 28.08.07
    • 19:56

    The UN, the International Community and even Ariel Sharon have agreed that the WB is occupied. Your entire argument is based on irrational religious extremism. For centuries, the land was owned primarily by Arabs. The fact that it was your ancestral homeland makes your beliefs understandable, but not right. It was the Zionists who left Europe to make war and of course, the Pals resisted. Naturally, they have tried to get back what was taken from them. But Israel is a fait accompli. The occasional just acts of the Israeli courts are to be praised as evidence of humanity. Your view that Jews should always come first shows that you are fundamentally racist. Jews are no better - and no worse - than Arabs. The suggestion that Pals are treated favorably is hilarious. That an IDF officer who shot a 6 yr old girl in the head to "confirm the kill" was merely reprimanded for misuse of his weapon shows the true state of Israeli justice.

  • 23. 0 0
    #8 Natan
    • Rick
    • 28.08.07
    • 19:30

    First, I want to express sympathy and disgust that your daughter is a "legitimate" target to some Pal. terrorists. Violence against innocents is never justified. These killers have done no favor to the Pal. people. But your statement that the Pals "continue the war they initiated against us" is a profound distortion of history. It is the Jews who came from Europe to what is now Israel to fight the Pals. The Pals understandably refused to give away what had been their property for centuries. If this is initiating a war, those who resist thievery are guilty of making war against the thief who broke into their home. The proclamations of the British Imperialsts meant nothing. The land was not theirs to give. The Israeli left is committed to human rights like the ADF in the US. It is the extremists on both sides who keep death coming. But I commend you for at least recognizing the humanity of the Pals. That is the first step toward peace.

  • 22. 0 0
    # 1 Fatmah, your views on morality is twisted...
    • Misha
    • 28.08.07
    • 19:05

    Fatmah, I can assure you that great majority on this site do not care at all about your moral standards. One thing is an axiom for you and that is love for the pal'n suicide beasts. That alone tells us everything we need to know. If Israel on moral scale would be close to your description all pal's would be long, long gone for good and the same would be applicable to the israeli arabs as well. To me that would be a perfectly moral deed regardless of what you haters say, however it still did't happen. Israel is following the irrelevent international laws to its own detrement and for the benefit of the pal'n beasts. I hope Israel soon will come to its sences and will work towards ressettlement of all arabs to the farmost from Israel muslim/arabic/moronic lands.

  • 21. 0 0
    Does Any Israeli Kid Him/Herself That It Is An Apartheid State?
    • chet
    • 28.08.07
    • 19:01

    The Apartheid Wall, the hundreds of checkpoints, the imprisonment of opposition Palestinian legislators, now this admission that Arab human rights are of no consequence and the list goes on and on. Is there anyone left in Israel who cares - if so, answer the idiot PAUL HARRIS

  • 20. 0 0
    PAUL HARRIS
    • Stephen Connor
    • 28.08.07
    • 18:31

    Paul, "WHEN ISLAM RESPECTS HUMAN RIGHTS IT WILL ALL HAPPEN !!" Islam is not the issue. The Quran is full of protection for the rule of law and the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, primitive, feudal, tribal societies routinely ignore the parts of the Quran that dictate modernization. Slowly but surely the gradual loss of control of the means of information are causing the erosion of these totalitarian regimes. They probably have another 100 years to go. I don't believe that justifies slaughtering them. That would put us back another 300 years. Peace. Steve

  • 19. 0 0
    pace 306 16
    • realism
    • 28.08.07
    • 18:30

    You seem to feel that in a Jewish state there should be one law for Jews and another less favorable one for others. I assume that in fairness you agree that in other lands (the US, for instance) there should be one law for the majority group and another less favorable one for Jews. If not, why not?

  • 18. 0 0
    interested..in what?
    • ravi
    • 28.08.07
    • 18:10

    when was any israeli ever interested in justice for the arabs?

  • 17. 0 0
    #14dear jane it is all israeli land !!!!
    • victor hardman
    • 28.08.07
    • 17:17

    see peace treaty jordan 1994

  • 16. 0 0
    Israel is JEWISH first, DEMOCRATIC second
    • pace306
    • 28.08.07
    • 17:13

    All the hateful leftists here seem to forget that. Who did the Jews in arab countries that were expelled have to complain to? The reality is that the WB is NOT occupied - no part of Israel is - its Israeli land under arab occupation as forced by international gangsters. Israel is a Jewish State, and Jewish intrests get served FIRST. After all , the arabs started 5 wars against Israel, they can hardly come and complain .But they do, because when it comes to Jews, the rules are ALWAYS different. That haaretz trumpets the insane rulings of a left wing Judicial hack isnt new, and when the arabs drive the last jews out of Israel and Jewish holy sites go the way of the dodo bird, Asheri can sleep well at night - knowing he gave terrorists, murderers and land thieves "thier due".

  • 15. 0 0
  • 14. 0 0
    The Fence Should Be Moved
    • Jane
    • 28.08.07
    • 15:29

    I agree with the need for a fence and I accept that it has saved lives but it must be moved so it stands on Israeli land. There cannot be separate laws for Jews and Arabs in Israel or it causes damage to both parties. Right is right for all citizens of Israel and it's about time Arabs are treated equally in the courts and elsewhere. We can't answer the Israel haters and anti-Semites who question Israel's morality when such injustices are condoned by the laws and the courts.

  • 13. 0 0
    #1 natallie and justice us style ???
    • victor hardman
    • 28.08.07
    • 15:23

    your comments about israel could just as easily be transposed to the us a!! justice is related to individual wealth the more you have, the more justice you will get . what if for example do you think oj simpsons fate if he had been less than wealthy !!

  • 12. 0 0
    They are only Arabs.
    • El-Birawi
    • 28.08.07
    • 14:51

    In Nazi Germany, very few where interested in acts of injustice done to Jews. They were simply Jews. In Israel, very few are interested in justice for the Arabs, they are only Arabs.

  • 11. 0 0
    efox 2
    • realism
    • 28.08.07
    • 14:15

    There is a legal concept you evidently don't agree with; it is that justice should be administered equally without fear and favor. Everyone's rights should be equal.

  • 10. 0 0
    Lawful Does NOT mean Just!
    • Observer
    • 28.08.07
    • 13:50

    I wouldn't call Daniel Friedmann a "Justice Minister". He's more like a top attorney who's willing to put-up a strong defense even when he knows well that his client is guilty as charged. Throughout history we've seen examples of laws that openly discriminated against people - Blacks in Apartheid SA, Blacks & Jews in the American South, religious people in China & Russia, etc, etc. Such "laws" can be passed by any gang of legislators that are part of the ruling majority. They obviously lacked any sense of justice, but they were enforced non-the-less and "violators" paid a heavy price for violating them. It is interesting that we often scorn ex-camp guards for obeying such laws or orders, but we don't hesitate for a second to pass similar laws when we've got the controlling power. "One can hardly believe that the speaker is an Israel Prize laureate in law." I say, we should question the dedication to justice of those who granted him such a title.

  • 9. 0 0
    The democratic government has monopoly power in Israel,
    • Joseph E .
    • 28.08.07
    • 13:31

    By Yehuda Bauer It is impossible for a modern state to exist without a monopoly over military, police or other power, and over its use in accordance with the law. When an alternative center of power is established, causing a significant number of citizens to stop recognizing the government's authority, the government is undermined. High Court biased decisions in support to arabs occupation , and parliament convergence policy and Temple Mount management by Waqf undermine the Jewish State Sovereignty , Democracy , Destiny , Security , there is no man in the house , wich also is a reason to support Friedman reforms ,

  • 8. 0 0
    Paul Harris No. 7:They ARE Human Beings!
    • Natan
    • 28.08.07
    • 13:20

    The Palestinian Arabs (Israeli or not) are indeed human beings. Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that are also the sworn enemies of Israel and the Jewish People. They continue the war which they initiated against us. My 3 year old daughter is just as much a legitimate target in their eyes and my son, now serving in the IDF is. That, is what the dimwitted editors and writers of Haaretz refuse consistently refuse to admit. The Israeli Left's continued closed mind and closed eyes in spite of the self evident reality has cost us all very dearly in blood, lives and limbs.

  • 7. 0 0
    YOU HAVE TO BE HUMAN TO DESERVE HUMAN RIGHTS !
    • PAUL HARRIS
    • 28.08.07
    • 12:11

    THE MISTAKE OF THE 21ST CENTURY IS THAT IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THESIS ! WHEN ISLAM RESPECTS HUMAN RIGHTS IT WILL ALL HAPPEN !!

  • 6. 0 0
    How ridiculous can Friedman get?
    • Esther
    • 28.08.07
    • 11:07

    "it should have been possible to consider compensation rather than altering the fence's route" said Friedman. What "compensation" exactly did he have in mind? A nice garden plot in Kochav-Yair, and free transport there and back morning and night? Or a few quaint ruins in Jaffa, with similar transport options?

  • 5. 0 0
    What ? Can't Be ??All this time I thought......
    • Wally
    • 28.08.07
    • 11:01

    Israel was a democracy. With Jewish prize lauretes like that who needs apartheid. Wake up and smell the roses for those who have rigidly defended Israel fairness and democratic values.The highest law of the land thinks otherwise backed up by years of oppression against the Palestians when decisions constantly went against them.

  • 4. 0 0
    Good for the goose, good for the gander
    • WWACD
    • 28.08.07
    • 10:48

    "Even if one accepts his unrealistic idea that a person can be compensated for the destruction of the fabric of his life" Ask the legal settlers that were evacuated from Gaza (for no greater purpose than a change in political wind) what they think of this statement and how realistic the idea of disrupting the lives of few for the (perceived) greater good is. Peace Through Victory

  • 3. 0 0
    On political bias
    • WWACD
    • 28.08.07
    • 10:26

    After all they have done and continue to do, even giving Arabs the benefit of the doubt constitutes a political bias in their favor. The default position regarding our curmudgeonly tenants should be one of wariness and mistrust. Anything short of this attitude is naivety bordering on criminal negligence. Peace Through Victory

  • 2. 0 0
    Begin from Nomads with Bogus claims outweighing the lives of Jews
    • Efox
    • 28.08.07
    • 10:19

    Then justice is not really what you are talking about. Justice means Israel defends itself and the confessed fanatical murderers who are to this moment still at war with all that is Infidel, must die rather than be given amnesty. The wall is Just, Israel has no obligation to let anyone through any territory it controls. The dispute over the territory is a matter that Israel must decide upon alone, for international courts have no Just say and the objectives of the Palestinians make them clearly and proudly, enemies. The courts are a farce. Fair judges weigh both sides and then decide which is just. There is no obligation to come to a balanced ruling on an unbalanced problem. Dozens of Islamic States seek to destroy Israel, with Palestine being a fictional means to this end rather than an end in and of itself. Israel must defend itself alone.

  • 1. 0 0
    Justice is easy, Comedy is hard
    • Natallie Durson
    • 28.08.07
    • 10:05

    Friedmann exists in a "Jew-centric" universe, where other people have rights only to the extent that it does not inconvenience any Jews. All Israeli/Palestinian issues appear black and white to him and decisions are easy to make. Most of the time he does not need to hear details of a case. It is only necessary that he know the identity of the parties to the case. Friedmann does not live alone in this moral black hole. he has lots of company in the government and out of it. This is a principle reason that Israels reputation has suffered so much in todays world.