The High Court of Justice held recently that the Sharon Plan for the expulsion of Jews from all of the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in northern Samaria does indeed violate the human rights of the residents whom the government plans to uproot. Notwithstanding that, the court went on to uphold the legality of the plan, because state interest can override human rights.
That is already a shocking holding, given the zeal with which the Supreme Court has guarded the human rights of Arabs under Israeli rule, even interposing itself into the conduct of military operations. That, however, is not the most shocking aspect of the decision.
How does the court decide whether the state interest is important enough to vitiate the human rights of those prejudiced by pursuit of the policy? Did the court make the government explain its policy and defend its importance, to the extent that the court should allow the denial of basic human rights? Not at all. The court noted that spokesmen for the government assured the court that the state interest was indeed important enough to override human rights of the citizens prejudiced by the government?s pursuit of that interest.
This is a ruling suited to the most brutal Latin American junta. It says that the legal system will not look into the actions of the government if the government affirms that its assessment is justified. That, of course, is what the High Court of Justice was created to do. Its function and raison d'etre is to judge actions or inaction by government officials and to compel action in conformity with law. If it is not going to do that, but rather be a rubber stamp to give an aura of legality to any act of government, then it is less than useless. It serves a positively destructive and evil purpose. It serves as a front for arbitrary and corrupt totalitarianism.
From the self-styled defenders of human rights in Israel and abroad we hear silence, which we must understand as acquiescence, if not approval. That silence declares, loud and clear, that the end justifies the means. That silence proves that there is not a single human rights organization in Israel. There are only political interest groups that use human rights concepts as a bludgeon. That is true also of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Knesset, especially the Law Committee, and the media.
They all forfeit the right even to speak of human rights. In fact, they have perverted the very foundations of law and have lost their legitimacy to interpret and enforce the laws. They should all fold their tents and leave the public arena - and the sooner, the better.
Stand and demand it.
That is already a shocking holding, given the zeal with which the Supreme Court has guarded the human rights of Arabs under Israeli rule, even interposing itself into the conduct of military operations. That, however, is not the most shocking aspect of the decision.
How does the court decide whether the state interest is important enough to vitiate the human rights of those prejudiced by pursuit of the policy? Did the court make the government explain its policy and defend its importance, to the extent that the court should allow the denial of basic human rights? Not at all. The court noted that spokesmen for the government assured the court that the state interest was indeed important enough to override human rights of the citizens prejudiced by the government?s pursuit of that interest.
This is a ruling suited to the most brutal Latin American junta. It says that the legal system will not look into the actions of the government if the government affirms that its assessment is justified. That, of course, is what the High Court of Justice was created to do. Its function and raison d'etre is to judge actions or inaction by government officials and to compel action in conformity with law. If it is not going to do that, but rather be a rubber stamp to give an aura of legality to any act of government, then it is less than useless. It serves a positively destructive and evil purpose. It serves as a front for arbitrary and corrupt totalitarianism.
From the self-styled defenders of human rights in Israel and abroad we hear silence, which we must understand as acquiescence, if not approval. That silence declares, loud and clear, that the end justifies the means. That silence proves that there is not a single human rights organization in Israel. There are only political interest groups that use human rights concepts as a bludgeon. That is true also of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Knesset, especially the Law Committee, and the media.
They all forfeit the right even to speak of human rights. In fact, they have perverted the very foundations of law and have lost their legitimacy to interpret and enforce the laws. They should all fold their tents and leave the public arena - and the sooner, the better.
Stand and demand it.