Israel's High Court doesn't deserve to be defended
Long before the Citizenship Law, the rope was no more than a broken reed of support for the protection of human rights in Israel.
By Gideon Levy Tags: Israel Supreme Court Palestinians Israeli ArabThe fight to defend the High Court of Justice from those who would bring it down must stop now. Enough self-righteousness, enough of this masquerade, in which we imagine that we are trying to protect the last beacon of justice and the last bastion of Israeli democracy. Not only is there no longer any point to the struggle - the last-ditch battle has already failed - it is also no longer justified. No more is there reason to defend an institution that issued the shameful rejection of the petition against the amendment to the Citizenship Law.
A court that vets this nationalistic and racist amendment, which discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel solely on the basis of their ethnicity, which in the name of security is prepared to deny basic rights and destroy the lives of thousands of Israeli families, which makes false use of security to try to cover up its racism - is an institution that must no longer be defended. Its name has been taken in vain, and defending it is misleading because it makes it seem to be an institution worth fighting for. It is better to tell the truth: It is not the guardian of the seal of democracy and human rights in Israel. The right wing can continue demolishing it to their hearts' content; they are only demolishing ruins.
Let's speak plainly: This is about transfer. Not by the army, the settlers or the extreme right, but expulsion under the aegis of the law and with the court's seal of approval.
The ruling of the justices in Jerusalem means breaking up thousands of Israeli families whose mother or father will be expelled. Vladimir can marry Yana, but Mohammed cannot marry Sana.
Among the justifications and pretexts of the majority of the bench, from Justice Eliezer Rivlin's "the damage is for a worthy goal" to Justice Hanan Melcer's "the law protects the security of the state," Justice Miriam Naor's diabolical reasoning stands out: "Protection does not extend to fulfillment of family life specifically in Israel." And just where will the people of this land who come from Taibeh or Nazareth go? And why should they go?
The ink is not yet dry on the Entry Into Israel Law before Israel continues its ethnic cleansing by means of the Citizenship Law. Thus will our encampment be pure. And who shall we thank and bless? The "leftist" and "liberal" court.
In the masquerade of defense of the High Court, one mask stands out as particularly deceitful - that of High Court President Dorit Beinisch. A do- gooder, she voted against the shameful ruling. But she drew out the process until an initial justice on the case who opposed the law, Ayala Proccacia, retired and was replaced by a justice who would say yes to the law. Beinisch wanted to have her cake and eat it too - to seem enlightened while not further kindling the anger of the right against her court. Beinisch understands the limitations of power, her supporters say, and realized that the rope could not be pulled too tight, lest it break.
Well, Madame President, that rope has indeed broken. A court that neutralizes itself with its own hands and abuses its office out of fear of its enemies is not a court. Long before the Citizenship Law, the rope was no more than a broken reed of support for the protection of human rights in Israel, particularly as long as these rights face off against the molech of security, which the court worshiped almost slavishly; the ruling on the Citizenship Law has now only given the final seal of approval to the end of the sham.
Of course, the trumpets of the right hailed the decision: "A good wind is blowing from the court," they said, which is sufficient to understand that a very evil wind is blowing through it.
After the grotesque demonization of the "planned invasive swarm," and the danger of terror from the Ajaji family, she from the Galilee and he from Tul Karm; after the self-righteous campaign of "everyone does it," despicably ignoring the essential difference between foreigners and natives of this land - the sovereign or the occupied part - both of whom are members of one people, the High Court has satisfied the fearmongers of demographics and terror, and crushed the rights of minorities in Israel. And now, who are we to complain about the moss growing out of the rock, on the Danons and the Levins, when the cedar trees, which may never have even been cedars, have caught fire?
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Oh yeah, that's when rightwingers don't like the Court's decisions. Leftwingers have a divine right to attack the Court as they please, because they are enlightened and have a monopoly on truth and democracy.
Intolerance that preaches destruction is dangerous from any direction
No need in your defence - go home
It is that the Supreme Court has no standard against which to measure the lawfulness of the Knesset's decisions. Write the Constitution, then the Supreme Court will have the standards with which to measure other laws. That is the only job for the Supreme court; upholding the standard of Law against the new additions of law provided by the Knesset. Nothing else matters for them.
Good is not enough for levy. If things are not perfect, they are just Bad. Of course, this is not a realistic view. The fact is that the Supreme Court is the real protector of civil rights in Israel. But the Court has also to be careful. Israel has no constitution, only Basic Laws, and to change these it takes only 61 Knesset vote (a majority of members, not merely a plurality.) It is too easy for the Knesset to pass a law that will diminish Supreme Court authority or overturn its rulings (as has been proposed a few times). When the Court itself is split about 50:50, it is more prudent not to cancel a Knesset law. This is the real world, Mr. Levy, not some ideal world.
If Gideon is a democrat he will repudiate this article. I agree with him that the decision is disappointing. But only dictators presume to replace a legal decision, properly grounded in a country's law, with their own view of what that decision should have been. An independent legal system is a critical component of a democracy. If you undermine it on the basis that you disagree with it, you simply place yourself above the law. If there is a critique of the decision so that it can justifiably be said that the Court is behaving as a tool of the State then this isn't it. This is a poor effort from someone who is trusted to behave justly, however iconoclastic their view. Disappointing.
What the author does not seem to know is that many young Israeli women are wooed by Palestinian and Arab men. Then after they are married, they become slave in their own homes.
well said, Gideon, well said
More ridiculous nonsense, showing once again why the Left has lost all credibility.
what country does that? Every democracy on earth. Americans have always married Iranians and Russians, English have married Argentinians, Kurds married Turks, Protestant irish Catholic irish the list goes on. It may not have been easy but the high court never up held a ban on it!
Apartheid South Africa. Not willingly, of course, but they eventually saw the writing on the wall.
People use the word democracy very easily around here but most the time its just a buzz word to make an article or talkback sound more dramatic. This law is actually an example of democracy when it works because when it was introduced nearly a decade ago both Likud & Labor supported it in the Knesset and since then all the courts including the HIgh Court have all said its legal, we cant say laws we like are democratic but the ones we don't like are undemocratic just because they are controversial. Politicians from both left & right voted in favor and all the courts voted in favor so how is that un democratic, controversial maybe but undemocratic no. How is this undemocratic against Israeli arabs, the arabs are not forbidden to marry palestinians the arabs from enemy entities ( anybody Israel doesn't have a treaty with ) are not granted citizenship upon marriage thats all. You complain about expulsion for law breaking, well the simple answer there is don't break the law isn't? How many other westernized countries will give automatic citizenship to people from enemy entities just because they marry somebody who is a citizen of the country they seek citizenship in? If somebody from Japan married an American citizen during WW2 how many of those Japanese would be granted US citizenship upon marriage? My grandfather went to the UK as a refugee from Austria where he married a British woman but it was a long time after the war was over before he was allowed British citizenship, Israel is officially still at war with the arabs just same the US & UK were at war with Japan & Austria. Even today many EU countries and the US have laws like this to stop marriages of convenience and non citizens who break the law can be expelled married or not, Israel is not unique its just the only one that ever gets criticized. The US has a much tougher llaw than the one banning government funding of political NGOS in Israel, everybody is up in arms about even the watered down version and shouting its undemocratic but when was the last time anybody called the US undemocratic for introducing laws like this which are even tougher than anything anything proposed here? The only real discrimination in this country is the Law of Return allowing Jews an automatic right to Israeli citizenship along with thousands of dollars worth of state benefits because they are Jewish whilst not granting that benefit to non Jews. In a democracy you can't praise the courts when they support your opinion on a piece of legislation and say the courts are broken when they don't also the granting of citizenship to a non national is not a human right its a GIFT and if the state decides not to give that gift then it is within its rights.
The giving of citizenship is madated by Ezekiel chapter 47, verses 21-23. It is the one-state solution ordered by YHWH 2500 years ago. Just do it!
The article is excellent. I am utterly shocked to read about the speed and intensity in which justice and democracy in Israel are being cracked down by its government and parliament. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of Israeli democracy and the initiation of a fatal development which I would call: apartheid. This is no more the country I was born in and for which my parents sacrified tears, sweat and blood.
This law is not reserved for Israeli Arabs solely. It bars ANY Israeli who gets married to a Palestinian, a Lebanese, a Syrian or an Iranian to bring his compagnon in Israel. This might be stupid but it's not racist. Most Arab countries do not allow Israelis from entering their territories
It also doesn't bar them bringing their new spouse into Israel in all cases, sometimes they can come into Israel and be granted temporary residency status which means whilst they don't have the same rights as a citizen as long as the obey the law then they can stay pretty much as guests of the state. I don't see any reason why we should be obligated to give a member of whats legally classed as an enemy entity cittzenship just because they married an Israeli.
The Court's decision is pure racist!
If you don't like it, then I suggest you lobby Abbas and the rest of the Pal Arab leadership to get off their butts and get back to the negotiating table.
Having failed in their numerous attempts to do away with the reality of Israel, the motley crew of Islamofascists, Marxists, extreme leftists and their willing enablers -calling themselves 'human rights activists'-have turned their attention to litigating Israel out of existence.The recently issued unsolicited non-binding "advisory opinion" by the International Court of Justice at The Hague is yet another example of that; when the supposedly highest judicial body in the world was not beyond prostituting itself to suit the convenience of it's member states.The considerable success that such 'activists' have had in blocking successive legislations, provided to an aura of legitimacy to their objectives and basking in the sunshine of easy success, it was not unusual for 'activists' including the author himself to describe the Israeli judicial system in much more endearing terms. Far from being a sign of weakness, this is a sign of maturing of a democracy; and any artificial barrier erected to prevent such a change will only result in a backlash that would see the left lose the last vestiges of legitimacy,if any, that it enjoys.Were the Israeli society change in it's political orientation in the future,the same should be reflected in it's judiciary as well. True that this ruling will not endear the court to the motley crew of closet anti-Semites, Islamofascists,Marxists and the lunatic leftists -conveniently calling themselves 'human rights activists'-pursuing the destruction of Israel with single minded zeal; but it would be better for democracy in Israel and justice in the world,were the High Court of Justice in Israel truly representatives of will of the Israeli people that their enemies. Law should be expression of the collective will of a people, and if it was the case that the Israeli courts consider themselves divorced from the people it was set over, then jettisoning of such hollow faux-ideals is something that was long overdue.
In today's global judicial climate it has become acceptable to allow politics to influence rulings. It is happening today in America also. What a sad commentary history will relate to future generations of freedom loving people everywhere. In a time when so many advances in science and technology and yes, even human rights, have been accomplished we know find ourselves backsliding down a slippery slope that nobody can say where it may lead us. Benjamin Franklin once said; "Those willing to give up essential Liberty to purchase a little bit of Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security." Although spoken over 200 years ago they seem so very prevalent today.
"in the name of security"...yeah I guess Israelis don't have a legitimate right to not want hundreds of thousands of enemies potentially walking around our Land right? you are pathetic
Facing unprecedented challenges from both the left and the right the Supreme Court is still the most responsible institution that we have. Unfortunately the practical implications of this article are irresponsible, ridiculous and downright dangerous.
A truly independent Supreme Court should have defended the rights of the weak. Aharon Barak, a former Supreme Court judge, when giving his minority opinion back in 2006 of the Citizenship Law, emphasised the temporary nature of the law: "... the appropriate goal of increasing security is not justifying severe harm to many thousands of Israeli citizens. The Citizenship Law has in effect become a permanent law with the blessing of the Supreme Court. It serves as cover up for gross inequality. Such a Supreme Courts must be unmasked.
If Israel rerally would want to have peace one day, it will have to accept the Palestinians living in their midst and in the neigbouring West Bank and Gaza. Physically Israelis and Palestinians are very close to each other. A sick mentality prevents people from intermingling and coexisting with each other. This sick mentality governs political thinking in Israel and indeed has even been adopted by the Supreme Court. They build and justify walls and do absolutely nothing about peace. An inhumane law prevents Miriam and Ahmed to live where they wish to live. Security becomes the fig leaf for racism.
.. they just weren't mentioned as vocaly by the left as were the ones by the right-wingers.
And even when it DID rule for justice, equality, and civil and human rights - it stood by as its rulings were ignored and circumvented by system, the military, and the government. Better that facade be gone!