Israel HC decides Zionism is racism
Supreme Court Strikes Blow at Jewish Settlement of Negev, Galilee
By Ezra HaLevi, INN
The court heard a petition brought by the Adalah Arab-rights advocacy group. Adala claimed a double standard in a state plan to finance educational institutions in areas given the status of “national priority” by the government – most of which were Jewish towns.
According to the court, 500 Jewish communities have received such status, while only four Arab ones have. “This gave rise to suspicions that the distinctions were based on race and nationality,” Chief Justice Aharon Barak said.
The Supreme Court declared that all definitions of “national priority areas” made by the government would be annulled. “The government’s decisions were flawed, clearly discriminated against Arabs and damaged equal rights,” said Barak. MORE
(THIS A SERIOUS BLOW TO THE ZIONIST PROJECT. EITHER ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO PROMOTE ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE OR IT DOESN’T. THE HC SAYS IT DOESN’T)
The Hebrew speaking Swedes have got to go. Until then, expect more of the same.
Comment by Shy Guy
— February 27, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
Ezra Halevi has reported on the effect of the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision and expressed his obvious concerns in that regard.
Unfortunately, Halevi has not analyzed the court’s decision as to how and on what basis the court came to the decision it did.
Such reporting of the Israeli Supreme Court’s decisions is of limited if any value to the reader and is playing to the emotions of the audience the writer is writing for.
The application and interpretation of Israeli laws are modelled on the British and American systems.
When the government does not like the way the courts have interpreted a particular law, it is open to the government to repeal or amend that law or to enact new legislation that will take precedence over the effect of that law as the courts have decided to interpret it.
Without the benefit of such legal analysis, it is pointless and unfair to draw any conclusions as to what the court’s attitude might be in respect of particular issues.
Hopefully when someone next posts a commentary on the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision(s), it will be a legal and informed analysis as to the reasoning and the basis of the court’s decision, rather than reporting the effect of the decision for any shock value the writer may be intending on generating.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— February 27, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
This court ruling should be ignored.
Comment by Laura
— February 27, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Just the sentences that were quoted says it all.
Comment by Ted Belman
— February 27, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Bill, in the US the courts are supposed to be limited by the state’s and/or US constitution. What is it that you think the courts here in Israel are bound by? There is no constitution here. Frequently enough, courts trample the constitution in the US. And nearly every time, the courts here trample on Zionism and Judaism because of their leftist ideology. I’d challenge you educate me to a different reality.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— February 27, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
Peretz, I am not seeking to educate anyone to any particular reality.
I am however interested in my own education.
I am not familiar with Israeli laws.
I am aware Israel lacks a constitution, but I have read that various principles enshrined in various Western nations’ democratic constitutions are the guiding philosophy behind much Israeli legislation as regards the rights of the individual vs the state.
I had understood that those various rights and obligations that often find expression in a state’s constitution could in Israel’s case be gleaned inferentially or at least implicitly from the Israeli legislation dealing with those matters.
It is not unheard of in the U.S. or Canada that certain laws thought to have been limited in scope were found to apply to more than what was intended by the legislators and that has been the case with both conservative and liberal court benches.
Rather than have someone tell me without more that the Israeli High Court is left leaning, I would prefer to hear why they think that, with due regard and reference to how the courts dealt with a certain issue in relation to the applicable law.
Perhaps you know Peretz whether in Israel there is a clear separation between the duties of the legislators and the courts such that the legislators enact laws and the court’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting and applying those laws.
If that clear deliniation exists, then the court’s decisions that appear to be left leaning may have more to do with the law they are obliged to interpret than their own political leanings.
Is it that left leaning laws are interpreted as they were intended or is it a matter of the courts bending centrist or right leaning laws into a left lean shape?
Do those feeling aggrieved by an Israeli court’s left leaning ideology has resort to the Israeli Court of Appeal to remedy the situation?
So Peretz, what is the situation in that regard?
Comment by Bill Narvey
— February 27, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
When the court calls preferential treatment for jews as racist, then they are saying Zionism which favours Jews is racist. I want Israel to favour Jews. I think that is what was originally intended. I don’t want to follow a western model. To espouse western values is to want Israel to be a state like any other state. I am against that.
Comment by Ted Belman
— February 27, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Ted,
First as regards your comment about the article posted and your further comment above. If it was originally intended that there be preferential treatment for Jews, I presume you are referring to the intention behind the enactment of various laws.
The question I raised is whether the law itself was left leaning, whether other laws and legal principles that assured equal treatment before the law for all Israeli citizens came in conflict with the laws that appeared to give preferential treatment to Jews or whether the decision was akin to judicially made law where the law was twisted by the court to satisfy its own ideological bent.
I do not know the answer to these questions and issues.
I am not one to simply take people at their word without knowing why they think the way they do.
Thus far, I have only heard variations on the theme that the Israeli courts are ideologically left wing and so turn the law against the idea of Israel being a distinctly Jewish society.
I really would like to know why that accusation is true, if it is and further whether the Israeli legislators have created laws that give left wing jurists the opening they need to interpret laws in keeping with left wing views. Alternatively the laws themselves may favour the left wing view or if not, the case might be one where in Israel both the Knesset and the courts have the power to make laws.
It would take a very informed Israelilawyer to answer these questions. I hope such lawyer does provide advice and information in this regard.
As to your other point:
I too am in favour of Israel identifying itself through its laws and culture as being a distinctly Jewish state. I also favour Israel being a democracy in the Western tradition. I do not think the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Western traditions in law and culture I would expect can be shaped to allow for Israel to be a distinctly Jewish state.
A model to blend both concepts can be found in Canada where as regards those French speaking Canadians and natives of Quebec, the Canadian constitution and the laws of Quebec serve to give preferential treatment to all French speaking Canadians and to Quebec and to characterize Quebec as a distinct society. Certain language laws in Quebec have given preferential treatment to the French language in order to ensure that the distinctness of Quebec is assured by law.
Surely such approach to law in Israel can follow this Canadian experience to ensure that Israel is for all time a distinctly Jewish society and state.
What are your thoughts on my foregoing suggested parallel with Canada and English and French society?
Comment by Bill Narvey
— February 27, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
The HC in Israel would probably strike down Canadian laws which provide for special treatment of the French.
Here it appeared that the GOI was designating Jewish towns as “national priority” towns. The Court denied them the right to have national priorities in which Jews are favoured. That’s how I read it.
“This gave rise to suspicions that the distinctions were based on race and nationality,” Chief Justice Aharon Barak said.
The Supreme Court declared that all definitions of “national priority areas” made by the government would be annulled. Why can’t the GOI have national priorities based on Jewish interests. In Canada there are special laws for Catholics (education )and for First Nations. I want Israel to have the right to decide national priorities which favour Jews.
Also in the the US there are affirmative actions laws. The reason the courts favoured affirmative action was that they felt that it was important to reverse the affects of descrination. Well the Jews need affirmative action.
No question, I would understand the decision if I could read the whole thing. But these few sentences say a lot.
Comment by Ted Belman
— February 28, 2006 @ 12:01 am
The HC decision on the fence is a case in point. I studied it in full. The court could have decided that it was a political matter and decline jurisdiction, or it could have decided that Israel’s security trumps Palestinian inconvenience. But it didn’t.
Comment by Ted Belman
— March 1, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
[…] See Israel HC decides Zionism is racism . Ted Belman) […]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Israel HC rules Zionism is Racism #2
— March 2, 2006 @ 9:50 am