Close your eyes, breathe in deeply, now exhale slowly… That was easy, wasn’t it? Not for everyone…
This past Sunday, Israel’s Supreme Court overturned a decision by Israel’s Central Election Committee to disqualify MK Haneen Zoabi of the Balad Party from running for a seat in the January 22 parliamentary elections. The court rejected the committee’s ruling that she should be banned based on her involvement in the Gaza flotilla of May 2010.
And therein lies an important tale.
Since it appears the decision is prompting calls for amending Israel’s Basic Law on elections, it is perhaps more important to focus on the fact that the court acted as it did than on the question of whether it was the committee or the court that correctly interpreted the law.
Briefly, earlier this month the elections committee had voted 19-9, with one abstention, to disqualify Ms. Zoabi based on its reading of the Basic Law, which in relevant part provides for the disqualification of a candidate “if the goals or actions of the person expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 1. Negation of the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; 2. Incitement to racism; 3. Support for armed struggle by a hostile state or a terrorist organization against the state of Israel.
Certainly a strong argument could be made that Ms. Zoabi’s frequent condemnation of Israeli government policy pertaining to the Jewish essence of Israel, and her participation in the Gaza flotilla, comes within the provisions of numbers 1 and 3.
But the court nonetheless ruled as it did. Importantly, the ruling stands out in the context of all the recent talk about the Palestinian Authority’s intention to haul Israel before the International Criminal Court now that the PA has achieved recognition by the General Assembly as a non-member observer state. Yet jurisdiction of the ICC and other international tribunals is based on the failure of a state’s own court system to take up certain issues or its penchant for consistently ruling in favor of the state.
However, the ruling of Israel’s High Court in the Zoabi case demonstrates quite clearly that Israel’s court system is neither afraid to take on controversial issues nor reluctant to side with Arab interests against Jewish ones. Indeed, given the spate of rulings regarding ownership of properties in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, it can hardly be argued that Israel’s courts automatically reject Arab claims and favor Jewish ones.
We don’t care at all for this phenomenon, but it would be refreshing to sometimes hear things like this acknowledged by chronic critics of Israel. Perhaps they should think just a little about how a Jew would fare in any Arab court.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
How and when is it appropriate for pulpit rabbis to comment publicly on the Iran issue?
David was many things: Brother, son, grandson, nephew, uncle, cousin, talmid, comrade, AND a WARRIOR
Some Israelis seem to have forgotten no one has yet tracked down the murderers of Ali Bawabsheh.
“Isn’t it enough that the whole world hates us? WHy do we have to hate each other?”
Who said Kerry won no concessions from Iran? He secured pistachios and Beluga caviar for America!
In 2015, Israel’s fertility rate (3+ births per woman) is higher than all Arab countries except 3
The New Israel Fund, as usual, condemns the State of Israel rather than condemning a horrible act.
I sought a Muslim group that claims to preach a peaceful and accepting posture of Islam, Ahmadiyya
While Orthodox men are encouraged to achieve and celebrated for it, Orthodox women too often are not
Jonathan remember, as long as you’re denied your right to come home to Israel you’re still in prison
Reports of a dead baby, a devastated family, and indications of a gloating attacker.
“The fear of being exposed publicly is the only thing that will stop people,” observed Seewald.
“Yesha” and Binyamin Regional Council leaders said the attack “is not the path of Jews in Judea and Samaria.”
The occasion? The rarely performed mitzvah of pidyon peter chamor: Redemption of a firstborn donkey.
The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.
Mr. Silver’s legislation changed the primary date to April 19, which avoids any conflict. And, we are happy to say, he received the support of Republicans in the legislature for changing the date.
The issue of the Chief Rabbinate’s control over conversions and other life-cycle matters has long been a contentious one.
Can adoption agencies limit the placement of children to heterosexual couples only?
The court’s finding that the president has exclusive jurisdiction in recognizing foreign countries might have been be apt if the issue at hand were a congressional attempt to grant recognition to “Palestine” as a state.
It wasn’t too long ago that Mr. Erdogan, in his determination to burnish Turkey’s credentials as an Islamist state at the cost of the secularism that had brought much economic and political success to Turkey, upended his country’s decades-long cooperative relationship with Israel.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/the-zoabi-decision/2013/01/03/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: