Seconds often make the difference between life and death and new technology makes the difference…
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.
Why does Obama and other democratic world leaders resist branding the Armenian killings as genocide?
I stated with clarity in simple terms, “Jews don’t have gangs.”
FBI’s undercover agents contacted ORA (Org. for the Resolution of Agunot) pretending to be an agunah
The Jewish vote won’t impact polls as much as it will the coffers of candidates and their Super PACs
Iran stands unopposed by the “international community” and is racing to assert regional dominance.
If some Israeli cops got a Jewish education & learned to love Jews, Israel would be a better place
No where in the world is there the level of intervention by foreign countries as exists in Israel.
The Ravens’ Ray Lewis screamed that violence is never the answer.” Unfortunately, he is wrong.
Obama is the latest incarnation of our ancient enemies who arise every generation with a new face
Why do Jews, then, sometimes feel more intensely about Polish anti-Semitism than they do about German anti-Semitism?
The president is unwilling to cede any of what he considers his exclusive powers in the area of foreign policy and has struggled mightily to keep the Senate away from any role in the kind of deal to be negotiated.
A committed Religious Zionist, he was a sought-after adviser on Zionist affairs around the world.
More important, Mr. Obama is simply acceding to Iran’s position on the timing of the lifting of sanctions.
For our community, Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy record will doubtless attract the most attention. And it is a most interesting one.
He went on to say that the United States would defend Israel if it were “attacked by any state.”
In their zechus may we all come to appreciate that life is a fleeting gift and resolve to spend every precious moment of it as if it were the last.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/the-zoabi-decision/2013/01/03/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: