Why are superfluous laws passed in Israel?
It is not MKs David Rotem, Zeev Elkin, Yariv Levin and company who are responsible for passing laws that are superfluous in a normal, responsible democracy. Most of the blame lies with those who are systematically, continuously, eroding the moral underpinnings of the Jewish state.
Although Likud was ostensibly in power for much of the past 34 years, the party, apparently suffering a serious inferiority complex, left the stage on which the national and moral character of the state is determined in the hands of those that the public rejected at the polls.
The latter, through their control of the media, the judicial system and much of the government bureaucracy, have led the nation to deprecate the basic Zionist values upon which the state of the Jews was founded.
In the current Knesset, which includes Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu MKs who are relatively free of the traumas of the previous generation, things have started to change thanks to legislation that expresses the ethical worldview of Israel's majority.
The Boycott Law isn't important; perhaps it's even superfluous. But the verbal arrogance of those who oppose it - after all, only the camp that has appointed itself guardian of the law may declare which laws we must obey and which we can transgress - demonstrates that those who have initiated the recent laws, most of which are justified and necessary, are moving in the right direction. The primal, authentic identity of the state now has a legal anchor in the statute book.
The ones spurring these legislative initiatives are the organizations that use foreign funding to besmirch the state and its military, to prosecute Israel Defense Forces officers abroad and to change the state's Jewish-Zionist identity. It isn't clear why the prime minister hasn't acted personally to stop this funding, part of which is aimed at toppling his government. Most of the money comes from European states, whose heads he can talk to as he did to stop the flotilla.
If Israeli citizens weren't betraying their country and being convicted of acts of terror, there would be no need for a law revoking their citizenship. And if all citizens met their military service obligations there would be no need for a ("discriminatory" ) law that gives benefits and priority to those who risk their lives for the country.
The existence of a small and specific group that has united against these laws aimed at reinforcing the state's values and sovereignty obligates the majority to voice its support for the general trend of these laws.
This is a fierce disagreement over the character of the state, particularly in light of the vehemence of those who reject these laws and have declared their intention to violate them. (Law professors and political leaders who oppose the laws have failed to hush these voices, as duty requires. )
Given the sympathy of the High Court of Justice to the behavior of these groups, as well as the precedent it set in previous similar cases, is quite clear how the court will rule. That is unfortunate, because it will further damage whatever prestige remains to this vital institution and will cement its image as the servant of the left in terms of perspectives and opinions. Such issues should be determined in the court of public opinion rather than in the biased court of law.
It is not MKs David Rotem, Zeev Elkin, Yariv Levin and company who are responsible for these laws, which are superfluous in a normal, responsible democracy. Most of the blame lies with those who are systematically, continuously, eroding the moral underpinnings of the Jewish state.
These legislative initiatives, some of which indeed go too far, such as the parliamentary inquiry of leftist organization (that's what happens when one must deflect attacks from all quarters ), are attempting to restore some order to the insanity.