INTO THE FRAY: Time to bar the Joint List

By Martin Sherman

The tenets of “defensive democracy” require Israel to act against those who would use its democracy to undermine the very foundations on which it is founded.

Clause 7A of Basic Law: Knesset:

  • A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
  • negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
  • incitement to racism;
  • support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.

Israel’s declaration of Independence:

 

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel…This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State…. Accordingly, we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement… hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

Two recent events underscored just how distorted the democratic practice in the nation-state of the Jews has become, and how detached it has become from the laws that are purported to regulate it.

The sacrosanct taboo?

The first was the unanimous disqualification  by the Knesset’s Central Election Committee of the newly formed party of Larissa Trimbobler-Amir, wife of Yigal Amir imprisoned for the assassination of Yizhak Rabin.

As heinous one might believe the actions for which Amir was convicted may be, questioning the official version is not by any stretch of the imagination an expression of support for a foreign power or a terror organization, a denial of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, nor an incitement to racism.

However, articulating any doubt as to the validity of the official version of the Rabin assassination is a sacrosanct taboo in Israeli society. Violating it almost inevitably imperils both the professional and personal standing of any foolhardy heretic—as the unfortunate Islamic scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar recently discovered. (Indeed, I might be skating on thin ice myself by merely writing these innocuous few lines.)

Significantly, Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit, who last year recommended precluding Right-wing Otzma Yehudit candidate Dr. Michael Ben Ari, from participating in the April 2019 elections, actually suggested that Trimbobler-Amir’s party be permitted to participate in the March 2020 elections. His opinion was, as mentioned, unanimously rejected by the Central Election Committee.

Of course, not all challenges to judicial verdicts (even when underpinned by defendants’ confessions) elicit such apoplectic responses. Thus, for example, the over-a decade of doubt that surrounds the grisly 2006 murder of schoolgirl Tair Rada has been the subject of much public debate and even a four part prime time TV series (now on Netflix), despite a confession of the convicted suspect and a High Court rejection of his appeal.

As usual, the Central Election Committee’s decision will be appealed in the High Court, which will be the ultimate arbiter of Trimbobler- Amir’s candidacy.

“…on the altar of annexation…”

The second event was the ramming attack against IDF soldiers in the early hours of Thursday (Feb. 6, 2020), when a Palestinian-Arab drove his vehicle into the group, injuring at least 12, one seriously.

Ofer Kassif, the sole Jewish Knesset member of the dominantly Arab Joint List, responded to the attack as follows: “The liters of blood that was split last night was not the result of a divine decree but of Balfour (a reference to PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence) with the collaboration of the White House. Netanyahu is heating up the situation and he will sacrifice both Palestinians and Israelis (including soldiers) on the altar of annexation. They are all needless victims of the [Israeli] occupation and repression.” 

From this, we are apparently supposed to believe that, on hearing about the “Deal of the Century”, recently aired by the White House, the driver became uncontrollably enraged that he simply had no other option but to hop into his car and drive it headlong into the nearest group of IDF servicemen he came across—all this, of course, after the Palestinians steadfastly refused to engage in any discussion on the US initiative.

But this is not the only instance of naked anti-Israel animosity from the Joint List and its pernicious components. Indeed, only a few days ago in a TV interview, Ayman Odeh, head of the Joint List, reiterated his oft expressed condoning of attacks  against IDF soldiers serving across the 1967-Green Line.

Innate & enduring enmity—both individual and collective

In previous columns, I have cataloged the innate and enduring enmity shown by the Knesset members of the Arab parties comprising the Joint List towards the founding ethos of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and their unequivocal identification with Israel’s most vehement enemies–see for example here.

For additional chronicles by others – see here and here.

Such malfeasance included, among other things: Spying for Hezbollah in 2006; smuggling mobile phones to convicted terrorists in prison; consorting with leaders of enemy states; expressing support of terrorist organizations and justifying attacks against IDF personnel and civilians across the 1967 Green line.

However, it is not only individual acts of specific Knesset members that should be cause for concern.

Indeed, even a cursory perusal of the official platforms both of the Joint List itself and its component factions reflect a stark rejection of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people as set out in the Declaration of Independence and an equally stark violation of the letter (and spirit) of the Basic Law: Knesset stipulating the conditions for participating in the national parliamentary elections.

Thus, for example, the Balad platform on the faction’s official site, devotes almost 500 words to the transformation of Israel from a Jewish State to a state-of-all-its-citizens—including a procedure for the acquisition of Israeli citizenship that would ensure an Arab majority, if it were adopted.

Clear contravention of conditions

For example, the Hadash faction platform declares: “…Israel cannot be a democratic state if it continues its policy of discrimination against the Palestinian-Arab population within Israel [i.e. Israel’s Arab citizens – MS]. National and civic equality is the incontrovertible right of the national Arab minority in Israel, based on its right to justice in its homeland.

Perhaps even more perturbing is the platform of the Joint List itself, today the third largest party in the Israeli legislature (!), which promulgates: “..rejection of the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and the exposure of the danger this entails to the standing and the rights of the Arab citizens [of Israel] and the rights of the [Palestinian-Arab] refugees.

Elsewhere it proclaims: “We will work to enact a Basic Law, whose fundamental principle will be civic equality for all citizens based on individual and group human rights, separation of religion from state and the prohibition of all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender, faith or political affiliation; and will provide the legal basis for egalitarian political participation in a state-of-all-its-citizens.”

In addition, the Joint List commits “to work to annul the Nationality Law [Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People]and all laws intended to provide legal legitimacy to racism and any racist policy.”

Significantly, the Nationality Bill was passed specifically to ensure the status of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people—so the intention to annul it (not modify it) is clearly a repudiation of Israel as such—and thus also a blatant violation of the letter (and spirit) of the Basic Law: Knesset, stipulating the conditions for participating in the national elections for the Knesset.

Undermining national security

But the Joint List’s platform does not only focus on legislation that defines the dominant Jewish nature of Israel. It also promotes actions that would undermine its national security.

Thus, for example, its platform declares that: “The Joint List will act to annul all the laws and programs entailing enlistment in the military or for national service”; and elsewhere: “the Joint List will act to annul the law for compulsory service of the Arab-Druze community and oppose any law or program for military or civilian service in Arab society.”

This clearly underscores two perturbing factors.

The first is that, given the range of threats facing Israel (from the surrounding Arab/Muslim world), the IDF, and hence the security of the nation, is critically dependent on compulsory conscription. Accordingly, the call to annul such subscription is tantamount to crippling the Israeli military and exposing the country to existential threats.

The second is by utter rejection of  participation of Arab society, not only in any format of collective contribution to the security of the state, but also to the wider civil society of Israel, the Joint List unambiguously endorses the detachment of Arab society, as a whole, from any role in shaping the fate of the country and the eschewing of any partnership in a shared destiny for the future.

Time for defensive democracy to kick in

Commitment to the tenets of democratic governance, societal pluralism and socio-cultural tolerance is not a suicide pact. Indeed, as one prominent philosopher of the last century astutely pointed out: “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

It is time for defensive democracy to kick in . It is time to apply the letter and the spirit of the laws that are purported to set out the rules for the democratic process in the country. It is time to preclude parties, who would undermine the foundations of Israeli democracy by exploiting the freedoms those foundations afford them.

This of course, does not mean that the Arab citizens of Israel should not be permitted to vote, only that they will not be able to vote for parties that reject the very basis on which the state was founded.

Any further leniency in this regard will lead to disaster – for Jew and Arab alike.

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

 

February 9, 2020 | 10 Comments »

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. @ Bear Klein: Bear, I haven’t figured out how to copy both the link and the article at the same time and transmit them both to Israpundit. My computer won’t let me copy the page and the URL at the same time. And it won’t let me store more than one copied word group at a time in its memory for reprinting on another site. Please instruct me again. Thanks.

  2. At least 5 judges on the Supreme Court need to learn this basic law because they keep letting those who support terrorism run for the Knesset even after the election committee rules them not eligible for reasons of support terrorism or the destruction of Israel.

  3. J

    High Court green lights Israeli Arab Heba Yazbak’s run for Knesset
    High Court President Esther Hayut confronted Likud lawyer Avi Halevi about Avichai Mandelblit’s line of argument.
    By YONAH JEREMY BOB FEBRUARY 9, 2020 20:36 Email Twitter Facebook fb-messenger
    MK Heba Yazbak of UAL-Balad (photo credit: Courtesy)
    MK Heba Yazbak of UAL-Balad
    (photo credit: Courtesy)

    A special expanded nine justice panel of the High Court of Justice on Sunday green-lighted Heba Yazbak, by a narrow 5-4 vote, to run for the Knesset with the Israeli-Arab Joint List despite her statements against Israel and the IDF.
    She had petitioned to the High Court to intervene after the Central Election Committee disqualified her.
    Read More Related Articles
    Turkish occupation of Cyprus ignored amid ICC Israeli settlements storm
    Government approves immigration of 398 Falash Mura from Ethiopia

    Savvy Americans Are Opening High Yield Savings Accounts (Yahoo Search)
    Recommended by
    While normally only three justices hear a case, nine justices are reserved for issues of major constitutional importance.
    Last week, Likud lawyer Avi Halevi told the High Court that Yazbak had more than crossed the line with her public statements and posts supporting terrorists Samir Kuntar and Dalal Mughrabi and refusing to repudiate physical resistance against the IDF.
    In the same hearing, Otzma Yehudit leader and lawyer Itamar Ben-Gvir told the High Court that they could not “have one law for [Michael] Ben-Ari, [Baruch] Marzel and [Bentzi] Gopstein and a different law for Yazbak. Arbitrary enforcement endangers the rule of law.”
    Ben-Ari, Marzel and Gopstein are all Otzma Yehudit candidates who the High Court has disqualified in the past for racism against Arabs, while controversially declining to disqualify Joint List Israeli-Arab candidates who made controversial statements.
    Ben-Gvir left out that the High Court did allow him to run, distinguishing between statements that have multiple interpretations and statements that can only be viewed as violating the law’s prohibition on racism on one hand or support for armed conflict against the State of Israel on the other.
    Latest articles from Jpost

    TOP ARTICLES
    1/5
    READ MORE
    Settlement-boycotting parties win big in Irish election

    Justice Uzi Vogelman hinted to him that he had intentionally omitted this point.
    In addition, a number of Israeli-Arabs have been indicted and convicted for statements or actions against Israel, but these politicians do not get to the point of running.
    By implication, this argument seemed to be Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s argument for allowing Yazbak to run.
    While his office condemned her statements as highly problematic, a state attorney told the High Court that her statements could be interpreted in different ways.
    As long as one of the ways that her statements could be interpreted was directed at a more general support for the idea of Israel as “a state of its citizens” instead of having certain Jewish values trump certain secular democratic values, the state lawyer said she could not be disqualified.
    Further, the state has argued that, while problematic, Yazbak’s statements did not meet the “critical mass” test for statements which require blocking someone from running for office.
    High Court President Esther Hayut confronted Halevi about Mandelblit’s line of argument.
    Hayut implied that unless Halevi could prove fully that there was no doubt that Yazbak’s statements were support for armed conflict against the State of Israel, that any ambiguity needed to be viewed in her favor.
    Halevi tried to argue that around 20 of her statements met the “critical mass” test for disqualification and that there was no real doubt about what Yazbak meant by her statements.
    Ben-Gvir attacked Yazbak for recently deleting some of her more problematic social media posts, calling her actions confirmation of guilt and obstruction of evidence.
    Hayut dismissed this claim, saying that (unlike for example incriminating private cellphone texts) her posts had been public for a long time, that everyone knew what she had posted and that she knew that she could not completely cover them up.
    This meant that, whatever Yazbak’s intentions by deleting the posts, the deletion could not be held against her.
    Justice Noam Sohlberg pressed Yazbak’s lawyer repeatedly that none of his contextual explanations really justified her 2013 post saluting female terrorist Mughrabi for accomplishing so much (directing a cell that killed 35 Israelis) before dying at the young age of 20.
    Yazbak’s lawyer said that when the Knesset candidate wrote this phrase she was dabbling in the Israeli-Arab rhetorical arena and narrative in which all sorts of metaphors are tossed out which one might not support.
    As an example, the lawyer cited that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has named certain locations after Hamas terrorists even though he is more at odds with Hamas than anyone.
    The lawyer also said that 18 of the 20 problematic examples were mere opposition to administrative detention or support for Palestinian hunger strikers – issues totally within the Israeli-Arab mainstream and which do not relate to supporting violence.
    Sohlberg implied that the support for Mughrabi was too damaging to be explained.
    He also pressed the state lawyer to explain why Mandelblit had disqualified some of the evidence filed against Yazbak, claiming that if all of it had been included, maybe the “critical mass” test would have been met.
    Following the hearing, Ben-Gvir, Yazbek and their supporters yelled at each other outside of the courtroom with right-wing activists calling Yazbak a “terrorist” and Yazbak calling Ben-Gvir “racist.”

  4. An even more outrageous case of discrimination against the Israeli Right than the banning of Yigal Amir’s wife’s tiny party was the “Supreme’s” banning of several members of the Knesset list of the Otzma Yehudit party, including the head of the list, who was a former MK., as “racist.” Unlike the one-woman “newly formed party of Larissa Trimbobler-Amir,” Otzma Yehudit had, and has considerable support and represents a serious current in Israeli public opinion, with a detailed party program addressing several different issues. And at the same time the court absolutely refused to disallow the candidacy of even one individual on the” Joint List,” not even any of the Balad party members, whose racism and desire to destroy the state was very open and obvious.

    THe only solution I can see is for the Knesset to adopt a Basic Law allowing itself to remove from office and disbar such outrageously biased and partisan judges. But will that ever happen? I fear for Israel if it does not.

  5. Hebrew University professor calls for armed Palestinian militias against ‘terrorisettlers’
    “Settlers are terrorists by definition,” says Professor Amiram Goldblum, who’s labeled IDF soldiers “Jewish terrorists” • Students file complaint.

    (February 5, 2020 / JNS)
    Hebrew University Professor Amiram Goldblum. Credit: Courtesy.
    Hebrew University Professor Amiram Goldblum. Credit: Courtesy.
    A senior Hebrew University professor sparked controversy this week when he called on Palestinians “to establish armed militias to protect their villages and towns from the terrorisettlers.”

    Chemistry professor Amiram Goldblum made the remarks in a Facebook post which was taken down within hours for violating Facebook’s guidelines, but doubled down on his statement in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12.
    “Settlers are terrorists by definition,” he said. “The settlements are all terror settlements. ‘Terrorisettlers’ is a term everyone uses today.”

    Goldblum continued: “I’m not talking about the haredim who live in Beitar Illit and Modi’in Illit, [but] rather about the masses, mainly the [ones who wear] knitted kipahs, who are in the heart of the Palestinian state and who regularly support all of their people’s terrorist activity.”

    Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories

    Miri Srebnogur and Nisi Mizrahi, coordinators of the Zionist watchdog Im Tirtzu’s Hebrew University branch, who discovered and reported the post, filed a police complaint against Goldblum.

    “When a professor incites violence like this, it can harm not only the residents of Judea and Samaria, but the students on campus as well,” they said. “There is no room in Israeli academia for professors who call to establish armed militias to act against Israeli civilians. The heads of Hebrew University must act quickly before his words turn into action.”

    Goldblum, who serves on the public council of the U.S.-based New Israel Fund, is an outspoken critic of Israel who is no stranger to controversy.

    In July 2019, he called IDF soldiers “Jewish terrorists” and wished for a “lightning bolt” to strike them down.

    A month prior, he called Im Tirtzu student activists “Nazi dogs” and threatened to prevent them into getting accepted into advanced degree programs.

    The Hebrew University has declined to comment on the latest incident.

    And his university had the Chutzpah to “discipline” Kedar. No one has disciplined this egregious Goldblum. Nor has he been arrested for inciting terrorism. Infamous!

  6. The Jerusalem Post – Israel News ARAB ISRAELI CONFLICT ISRAEL NEWS OPINION MIDDLE EAST DIASPORA Login
    Our Arab neighbors have always rejected any kind of so-called peace plansOur Arab neighbors have always rejected any kind of so-called peace plansJPOST – OPINION
    How To Efficiently Empty Your Bowels Every Morning – Top Surgeon Explains HowHow To Efficiently Empty Your Bowels Every Morning – Top Surgeon Explains HowGUNDRY MD | SUPPLEMENT
    The New Toyota Rav4 Will Leave You Astounded!The New Toyota Rav4 Will Leave You Astounded!TOYOTARAV4K2 | SPONSORED LINKS
    Rahat: Two feuding clans cause massive riots, houses burnt, cops injuredRahat: Two feuding clans cause massive riots, houses burnt, cops injuredJPOST – ISRAEL NEWS
    Recommended by

    Jerusalem Post Israel News
    High Court green lights Israeli Arab Heba Yazbak’s run for Knesset
    High Court President Esther Hayut confronted Likud lawyer Avi Halevi about Avichai Mandelblit’s line of argument.
    By YONAH JEREMY BOB FEBRUARY 9, 2020 20:36 Email Twitter Facebook fb-messenger
    MK Heba Yazbak of UAL-Balad (photo credit: Courtesy)
    MK Heba Yazbak of UAL-Balad
    (photo credit: Courtesy)

    A special expanded nine justice panel of the High Court of Justice on Sunday green-lighted Heba Yazbak, by a narrow 5-4 vote, to run for the Knesset with the Israeli-Arab Joint List despite her statements against Israel and the IDF.
    She had petitioned to the High Court to intervene after the Central Election Committee disqualified her.
    Read More Related Articles
    Turkish occupation of Cyprus ignored amid ICC Israeli settlements storm
    Government approves immigration of 398 Falash Mura from Ethiopia

    Savvy Americans Are Opening High Yield Savings Accounts (Yahoo Search)
    Recommended by
    While normally only three justices hear a case, nine justices are reserved for issues of major constitutional importance.
    Last week, Likud lawyer Avi Halevi told the High Court that Yazbak had more than crossed the line with her public statements and posts supporting terrorists Samir Kuntar and Dalal Mughrabi and refusing to repudiate physical resistance against the IDF.
    In the same hearing, Otzma Yehudit leader and lawyer Itamar Ben-Gvir told the High Court that they could not “have one law for [Michael] Ben-Ari, [Baruch] Marzel and [Bentzi] Gopstein and a different law for Yazbak. Arbitrary enforcement endangers the rule of law.”
    Ben-Ari, Marzel and Gopstein are all Otzma Yehudit candidates who the High Court has disqualified in the past for racism against Arabs, while controversially declining to disqualify Joint List Israeli-Arab candidates who made controversial statements.
    Ben-Gvir left out that the High Court did allow him to run, distinguishing between statements that have multiple interpretations and statements that can only be viewed as violating the law’s prohibition on racism on one hand or support for armed conflict against the State of Israel on the other.
    Latest articles from Jpost

    TOP ARTICLES
    1/5
    READ MORE
    Settlement-boycotting parties win big in Irish election

    Justice Uzi Vogelman hinted to him that he had intentionally omitted this point.
    In addition, a number of Israeli-Arabs have been indicted and convicted for statements or actions against Israel, but these politicians do not get to the point of running.
    By implication, this argument seemed to be Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s argument for allowing Yazbak to run.
    While his office condemned her statements as highly problematic, a state attorney told the High Court that her statements could be interpreted in different ways.
    As long as one of the ways that her statements could be interpreted was directed at a more general support for the idea of Israel as “a state of its citizens” instead of having certain Jewish values trump certain secular democratic values, the state lawyer said she could not be disqualified.
    Further, the state has argued that, while problematic, Yazbak’s statements did not meet the “critical mass” test for statements which require blocking someone from running for office.
    High Court President Esther Hayut confronted Halevi about Mandelblit’s line of argument.
    Hayut implied that unless Halevi could prove fully that there was no doubt that Yazbak’s statements were support for armed conflict against the State of Israel, that any ambiguity needed to be viewed in her favor.
    Halevi tried to argue that around 20 of her statements met the “critical mass” test for disqualification and that there was no real doubt about what Yazbak meant by her statements.
    Ben-Gvir attacked Yazbak for recently deleting some of her more problematic social media posts, calling her actions confirmation of guilt and obstruction of evidence.
    Hayut dismissed this claim, saying that (unlike for example incriminating private cellphone texts) her posts had been public for a long time, that everyone knew what she had posted and that she knew that she could not completely cover them up.
    This meant that, whatever Yazbak’s intentions by deleting the posts, the deletion could not be held against her.
    Justice Noam Sohlberg pressed Yazbak’s lawyer repeatedly that none of his contextual explanations really justified her 2013 post saluting female terrorist Mughrabi for accomplishing so much (directing a cell that killed 35 Israelis) before dying at the young age of 20.
    Yazbak’s lawyer said that when the Knesset candidate wrote this phrase she was dabbling in the Israeli-Arab rhetorical arena and narrative in which all sorts of metaphors are tossed out which one might not support.
    As an example, the lawyer cited that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has named certain locations after Hamas terrorists even though he is more at odds with Hamas than anyone.
    The lawyer also said that 18 of the 20 problematic examples were mere opposition to administrative detention or support for Palestinian hunger strikers – issues totally within the Israeli-Arab mainstream and which do not relate to supporting violence.
    Sohlberg implied that the support for Mughrabi was too damaging to be explained.
    He also pressed the state lawyer to explain why Mandelblit had disqualified some of the evidence filed against Yazbak, claiming that if all of it had been included, maybe the “critical mass” test would have been met.
    Following the hearing, Ben-Gvir, Yazbek and their supporters yelled at each other outside of the courtroom with right-wing activists calling Yazbak a “terrorist” and Yazbak calling Ben-Gvir “racist.”

    From today’s Jerusalem Post. Infamous!