Israeli March for Human Rights, Rabin Square, Dec 11th
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI — their home grown equivalent of our ACLU) and 100 Israeli organizations are calling all those who love human and civil rights to march in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on December 11th. Click the image for a stirring open letter by director Hagai El-Ad refusing to back down on rights gauranteed to all members of Israeli society. This includes specifically, he says, gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexual, Ethiopians, Sephardim and Mizrahim, Jew and Arab citizens, refugees and migrant workers, and Arabs of the territories. An excerpt:
We are not afraid of equal citizenship for all Israelis, nor do we have any qualms about living in a society where human rights are simply ours. Human rights are not conditional — they do not succumb to racist legislative initiatives, nor are they subservient to arbitrary government decisions that would wave human rights about as a carrot or a stick. There are those who would ransom the concept of human rights, who would transform our society into a limited democracy. There is no such thing. A state in which human rights are conditional is no democracy at all, and there is no way we will allow Israel to slide down that slippery slope.
If you’re in Israel, catch a bus and go! If you’re out here in the Diaspora, send your Israeli friends the No Way event on Facebook, retweet their Twitter announcements (Hebrew), and send them the link (English page here).
Everything sounded good except one thing. It talks about ensuring rights to all Israeli citizens. And then … it talks about “Arabs of the territories.” That’s one-state talk. Israel needs to ensure the rights of its Arab citizens, not spread its jurisdiction to the West Bank. No to annexation, yes to two states. I do not recognize West Bank society as Israeli society.
The presumption is as occupier (a legal status Israel’s High Court has upheld), Israel is obligated to protect the rights of all people living in the territories. Until Israel withdraws and is no longer the caretaker there, it is the Israeli public and government’s responsibility.
But on a second note, since Arabs from the territories are the largest day labor force for Israelis, they are part of Israeli society. Certainly the bottom rung, but their situation is similar to migrant workers who are not citizens but deserve full human rights over life and dignity, fair wages, due process, free speech, and so on.
Israel is obligated to protect the rights of all people living in the territories. Until Israel withdraws and is no longer the caretaker there, it is the Israeli public and government’s responsibility.
True.
The presumption is as occupier (a legal status Israel’s High Court has upheld)
Do you always defer to the High Court’s rulings, or only when you agree with them?
Do you always defer to the High Court’s rulings, or only when you agree with them?
Neither.
So, if the High Court rules that Israel is an occupier in the territories, its ruling is proof that Israel is an occupier in the territories . . .
but when the High Court rules that (a) targeted assasinations are allowed, (b) the fence/wall is a security (not a political) measure, (c) administrative dentention is lawful . . . then we should just ignore the High Court’s rulings?
J1- I don’t think KFJ is claiming the High Court of Israel to be infallible.
I know he’s not.
But I just don’t think that things like Israeli High Court rulings–or U.S. Supreme Court rulings for that matter– are very persuasive in determining if an action or thought is good/bad or right/wrong or wise/unwise, etc.
Perhaps some further context from me would help: Israel’s High Court leans towards the liberal democratic principles that founded the country. Unfortunately, the rightward shift in Israel’s governing coalitions over the past decades has led to assaults on the court’s “activists” rulings.
Those familiar with human rights cases in Israel say that the court is tepid and scared of rocking the boat. It is afraid of being stripped of its powers of judicial review. Bibi already changed the rules of appointing judges and installed a very conservative judge to the bench this year.
Israel’s supreme court, for example, is not in the secure position of America’s, because it’s role is not enshrined in any constitution. The powers of the High Court are subject to the whim of the Knesset and would never withstand any sweeping civil rights rulings like Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade, or the like. Law in Israel, is malleable by the whim of politicians in ways that America’s is not.
Thus when I say “even Israel’s supreme court has ruled X,” I’m saying that the High Court pulls punches but even on this matter, it stands up for jurisprudence.
Israel’s supreme court, for example, is not in the secure position of America’s, because it’s role is not enshrined in any constitution
The US Supreme Court’s power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either.
BZ, point taken although it’s a point aside: Congress’ ability to take powers away from the judicial branch have a high enough threshhold to make changing the court’s structure, powers, and appointment of judges incredibly difficult. In Israel, the High Court enjoys no such protection, constitutional or otherwise.
but even on this matter, it stands up for jurisprudence
Isn’t that the point? The Court “stands up for jurisdprudence” when it rules as KFJ would like . .. . but it is “is tepid and scared of rocking the boat” if it rules as KFJ would not like . . .
The US Supreme Court’s power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution either
Judicial review is a dangerous concept, but at least the U.S. Supreme Court has a constitution upon which to base their rulings, as opposed to Israel’s High Court.
Law in Israel, is malleable by the whim of politicians
Aren’t politicians supposed to make the laws, btw.?
Aren’t politicians supposed to make the laws, btw.?
That’s a silly and flippant reply. Politicians are supposed to make the law, but left to their own devices will play with the law and apply it in discriminatory ways. The law is made by politicians, but they are subject to their own laws, made by them, which include Israel’s shaky institution of Judicial review.
I don’t think it’s such a silly reply, btw.
Just about every country on earth–other than the U.S.–has a “shaky institution of Judicial review” for the very reason that it might be better to have the people elect members of parlimant, who then pass the laws governing the society . . . . instead of allowing for (say, in the U.S.) five men and women in Washington, Dc to decide how a society should be run.
The law is made by politicians, but they are subject to their own
So when Israeli politicians passed the Basic Laws they weren’t left to their own devices to apply things in a discriminatory manner . . . . but today’s politicians aren’t what politicians used to be, so they needed judges to make the laws for them?
The short answer, from how I read this, is that KFJ has no love for the Israeli Judiciary. He brought up Israeli case law in an attempt to sway those who, unlike him, believe the High Court has a role in justice. This is why he would not quote the High Court on issues where they do not agree with him; it wouldn’t serve a purpose.
As for Amit… and please feel free to correct me if I am remembering wrongly, Amit… I thought he already clarified that he doesn’t believe that a Jewish state (and possibly a Jewish people?) should exist, and is not particularly concerned how this outcome is achieved (i.e. the ends justify the means).
In other words, imagine if Israeli politicians were all Meretz and Balad, and it was only the High Court’s decisions that was preventing the politicians from passing laws to dissolve the Jewish state and deport Jews out of it. What kind words would Amit have to say about the politicians versus the Court then?
The idea that institutions should be free to engage in a “balance of power”, and that this achieves the most good in the long term, is an American invention. To those with little interest in the preservation of the system, its institutions and their balance of power, that one institution preventing their “master plan” from unfolding is pure evil, to be annihilated any way possible.
Some laws can and should change with popular sentiment. Tax regulations, zoning codes, criminal punishments, military and social welfare budgets, environmental guidelines, business regulations and incentives, and so on. These laws are the purview of changing governments.
But civil rights — as envisioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence — do not, cannot and should not ever be subject to the will of a politician.
Just this year, Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu attempted to pass a loyalty oath for citizenship. This is not 1984, this is a real political party in Israel. A party that’s a key member of Bibi Netanyahu’s coalition.
Just this week, Israel’s justice minister — responsible for the impartial implementation of law among all — said to a conference of orthodox rabbis, “Step by step we will bestow religious law upon the citizens of Israel and transform religious law into the binding law of the state.” Some implementation of freedom of religion that is.
I have deep respect for many of Israel’s judges, particularly the former Chief Justice. Within the realpolitik of being threatened by political players who want to dismantle law that is unsatisfactory to their agendas, I cannot fault them for playing it safe. Even as I objectively recognize that the High Court has shied away from most precedent-setting potential rulings.
But civil rights — as envisioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence — do not, cannot and should not ever be subject to the will of a politician
Why? Didn’t politicians write the Israeli Declaration of Independence to begin with? Why were the 1948 politicians more wise as to what is necessary in 2009 than the 2009 politicians?
Within the realpolitik of being threatened by political players who want to dismantle law that is unsatisfactory to their agendas
That’s the system. The people elect politicians, to make laws satisfactory to their agendas. The courts interpret those laws to the facts of given cases.
I cannot fault them for playing it safe.
And it is amazing that you keep writing that the High Court “plays it safe” when it does not interpret the law as you see fit, but it “stands up for jurisprudence” when it does rule how you like.
Do you have such little regard for the intelligence and integrity of the men and women on that court?
Could it be that they might actually interpret the law–including that divinely written Declaration of Independence–in a manner differently than you’d like?
But civil rights — as envisioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence — do not, cannot and should not ever be subject to the will of a politician.
The U.S. Constitution stated that slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for census purposes. Should that idea have remained in US jursiprudence? Were the 13th and 14th Amendments dastardly acts?
Jonathan1 writes:
The U.S. Constitution stated that slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for census purposes. Should that idea have remained in US jursiprudence?
Yes. It wasn’t the slaves themselves who were losing representation by counting as 3/5 of a person (since they couldn’t vote in the first place); it was their owners.
Slavery itself was of course very problematic, as was the disenfranchisement of African-Americans. But if a whole group is disenfranchised (whether or not this is justified), it makes sense that they shouldn’t count at full strength towards the population totals so that other people in their area can get proportionally more representation.
A modern equivalent is prisoners (whose disenfranchisement is much more defensible). There are a number of State Senate districts in upstate New York (and other states) that contain large numbers of (nonvoting) prisoners, giving the nonprisoner population of those districts proportionally much more representation than people in other districts, for no justifiable reason.
Very interesting, BZ, but it doesn’t change the point that, even if . . .
Slavery itself was of course very problematic, as was the disenfranchisement of African-Americans
there is no remedy for such ills to those who believe that time stopped in 1787 and in 1948.
In other words, the 13th and 14th Amendments were still dastardly acts.
Jonathan1 — You’re arguing for the Nuremburg Laws, Sharia law, and for the “Save Christmas” advoates in the states. As I said, some laws should change easily and some should not. Nowhere have I said that no laws should never change.
Come to think of it, what are you arguing?
KFJ,
I’m trying to give a little friendly advice that, IMHO, your argument for increased human rights in Israel would be strengthened by NOT using Israel’s Declaration of Independce as a basis of your argument. There are plenty of sound arguments out there–as I’m sure you know–but using laws or court rulings aren’t so effective, IMHO.
For instance, you write that But civil rights — as envisioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence — do not, cannot and should not ever be subject to the will of a politician
I take from this that you are drawing a parallel between Israel’s Declaration of Independce and the US Constitution, meaning that the Israel DOI contains some overiding/bedrock prinicples that govern Israeli society. The problem with this thinking (other than the fact that the Israel DOI does not have the same weight as the US Constitution) is that the Israel DOI–and the Basic Laws– were written (in the case of the DOI mostly by Ben-Gurion I believe) by politicians, who aren’t any different than today’s politicians. That’s the system. The people elect politicians who make the laws, and then the courts ensure that the laws are being enforced properly. It’s a very flawed system, but it’s the system we have in the West.
If you argue that Within the realpolitik of being threatened by political players who want to dismantle law that is unsatisfactory to their agendas it’s pretending that politicians aren’t elected to dismantle law that is unsatisfactory to their agendas. In fact, that is the entire point of politics. Again, the Israel DOI didn’t fall out of the sky, it was written by politicians.
What’s more, it is true that American system gives the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution delineates a bunch of bedrock principles that are the formation of the Republic, but even those principles can be changed by politicians–the process to make those changes is just intentionally much more cumbersome. That’s why I gave the example of slavery. Under the U.S. Constitution, slavery was not prohibited. Because Americans came to realize that slavery was a bad idea, the 13th Amendment was passed. But, if the argument is that “slavery was not prohibited under the Constitution” (so we cannot outlaw it), or that the Israel DOI guarantees civil rights for minorities (so that Lieberman cannot pass a loyalty oath) it leeds to faulty logic . . . and a weakened argument, IMHO.
[[Just for the record, I too think the loyalty oath is a bad idea. I can already see the magnes zionist writing something like I’m trying to outlaw the Israeli High Court.]]
the process to make those changes is just intentionally much more cumbersome
Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? That Israel’s hurdles for stripping rights is way lower than in America? Presumably, I’ve been arguing for help defending Israeli civil rights, not encouraging Bibi’s government to continue dismantling them.
You’ve been arguing that Israeli civil rights can’t be changed BECAUSE those rights are implied in the Israel DOI . . . is it not a more convincing argument to say that Israeli civil rights should be strengthened because it’s a good idea to strengthen them–regardless of what Israeli politicians thought in 1948? (Maybe you can bring up civil rights law in Israel, or other places, and explain how they’ve strengthened Israel–that’s different than saying that civil rights laws are beneficial because they are the law.)
To put it another way, from Avigdor’s example. Say a Balad-led government voted to change the Law of Return. If the High Court overturned that amendment–because of the Israel DOI–I imagine you’d be upset at the Court.
But, if your civil rights arguments are based on: we have to follow whatever the Israel DOI says, then you’d have to back a High Court ruling against changing the Law of Return, because that’s what the DOI says.
KFJ, I believe you want to work for a more peaceful and just world. It’s difficult to accept the narrative you present, however, when other narratives, powerful and real, intercede. I wish you would expose yourself to contrasting experiences, to better inform and balance your perspective.