Now, it should be recalled that the Oslo agreement of September 1993 was ratified on the White House lawn and virtually imposed on the people of Israel. The agreement was never subject to public debate or even to serious Knesset debate, something unheard of in any genuine democracy. Moreover, this secretly negotiated agreement required Israel to surrender Jewish land to the PLO, a terrorist organization still specified as such in Israel’s criminal code.
There are three basic issues here. First, if Israel is a democracy, then organizing a non-violent mass demonstration against implementation of the Oslo agreement is not a matter of sedition but of civil disobedience. Second, is the Oslo agreement consistent with the laws of the state? Third, was Oslo consistent with the known convictions of the Jewish people?
Regarding the second issue, 26 prominent citizens of Israel submitted a scholarly petition to Israel’s Supreme Court challenging the legality of the Oslo agreement. The Court refused to consider the petition on the merits, claiming it involved a political and not a justiciable issue. This was a questionable decision since the petition clearly stipulated that members of the Government, by negotiating that agreement, had violated Israel’s criminal code.
As for the third issue, it may well be argued that the Israel-PLO agreement violated the convictions of a large majority of the Jewish people. The Labor-led Government that concluded that agreement actually came to power as a result of deception. Its leaders had promised the electorate there would No recognition of the PLO, No Palestinian state, No negotiation over Jerusalem (and, most emphatically, No withdrawal from the Golan Heights). Those campaign pledges affirmed the profound beliefs of large majorities of the Jewish people attested to by professional polls prior to the June 1992 elections -- the elections that brought Labor to power.
Accordingly, Moshe Feiglin’s protest against implementation of Oslo was, in effect, a protest against the Government’s betrayal of its pledges to the nation on matters involving the very borders and capital of the state. His was a non-violent protest against a Government that did not truly represent the Jewish people, which is why that Government was rejected by the people in the May 1996 elections. That its successor, the Netanyahu Government, adhered to Oslo only proves that democratic elections alone do not provide an adequate foundation for democracy or popular sovereignty. Feiglin learned this the hard way.
Actually, Feiglin misconceived the nature of his protest by misconceiving the nature of Israel’s political system. He engaged in non-violent acts which he and many others believed to be acts of civil disobedience comparable to those associated with the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King. He naively applied certain principles of American democracy to the State of Israel, a State which is not and never has been a genuine democracy, as the present writer has so often demonstrated.
As is well known, Martin Luther King engaged in civil disobedience vis-à-vis the segregation laws of various American state legislatures. But he justified his acts of civil disobedience by arguing that those laws violated the American Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Israel has no constitution. The supreme law of the land—or so it seems—consists of statutes enacted by the Knesset. But the Knesset is controlled by the Government, which consists of party oligarchs to whom MKs defer in order to receive political preferment. (Note: the Knesset has never toppled a Labor- or Likud-led Government by a vote of no-confidence.)
Political power in Israel is therefore concentrated in the Government, whose WILL or policies are often quite contrary to the will or convictions of the people. Hence one ought not expect any judicial body to condone acts protesting implementation of the Government’s Oslo policy of “territory for peace” – precisely what Feiglin, a patriotic Jew, was trying to prevent.
We can now understand why the same act, which in a democracy is classified as “civil disobedience,” can be classified “sedition” in an oligarchy. In a democracy, an act of civil disobedience is directed not against the existence of the government but against a particular law. In an oligarchy, however, that same act will be treated by the government as an attack against itself. This is why civil disobedience in a democratic America may constitute sedition in undemocratic Israel.
At this point it may be asked: “Why aren’t many of Israel’s Arab citizens, who are known to have aided terrorists and have even committed terrorist acts against the state, indicted and convicted of sedition?” The reason is painfully simple. Neither Labor nor the Likud wants to alienate Arab voters!
The truth is, Feiglin was convicted of sedition for political reasons—and for such reasons he was banned by the Central Elections Commission from participating in the January 2003 Knesset elections. Presiding Judge Mishael Cheshin denounced Feiglin for having “refused to accept decisions made by a democratically elected government.” The trouble is that Israeli governments, once elected, betray the abiding beliefs of the Jewish people.
And so, what prevails in Israel is not democracy and the rule of law but oligarchy and the rule of men. This is inevitable in a country that lacks a written Constitution, a country, moreover, in which sovereignty is located in the State, not in the People—and certainly not in God.
Article Two on the subject will follow.
Civil Disobedience Versus Sedition
In support of Pinchas Wallerstein’s call to fight against Sharon’s "disengagement plan", I am republishing two articles to provide a broader understanding of civil disobedience in its American versus Israeli context. Nothing in these two articles should be construed as intended to discourage civil disobedience against the Sharon plan—a plan which violates Jewish law, Israeli Basic Law, and international law. We must defeat Sharon’s plan. By so doing we shall take a giant step toward the creation of a NEW ISRAEL.- Paul Eidelberg
Article One
Civil Disobedience Versus Sedition
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Five years ago Moshe Feiglin, Chairman of Zo Artzeinu, was convicted of sedition. The verdict was based on actions taken by Feiglin in 1995 during the Rabin-Peres regime. His “crime” was organizing thousands of demonstrators across Israel blocking main intersections in protest against the Oslo or Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles. Since these principles require Israel to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, their implementation, Feiglin believed, endangers Israel’s existence.
Now, it should be recalled that the Oslo agreement of September 1993 was ratified on the White House lawn and virtually imposed on the people of Israel. The agreement was never subject to public debate or even to serious Knesset debate, something unheard of in any genuine democracy. Moreover, this secretly negotiated agreement required Israel to surrender Jewish land to the PLO, a terrorist organization still specified as such in Israel’s criminal code.
There are three basic issues here. First, if Israel is a democracy, then organizing a non-violent mass demonstration against implementation of the Oslo agreement is not a matter of sedition but of civil disobedience. Second, is the Oslo agreement consistent with the laws of the state? Third, was Oslo consistent with the known convictions of the Jewish people?
Regarding the second issue, 26 prominent citizens of Israel submitted a scholarly petition to Israel’s Supreme Court challenging the legality of the Oslo agreement. The Court refused to consider the petition on the merits, claiming it involved a political and not a justiciable issue. This was a questionable decision since the petition clearly stipulated that members of the Government, by negotiating that agreement, had violated Israel’s criminal code.
As for the third issue, it may well be argued that the Israel-PLO agreement violated the convictions of a large majority of the Jewish people. The Labor-led Government that concluded that agreement actually came to power as a result of deception. Its leaders had promised the electorate there would No recognition of the PLO, No Palestinian state, No negotiation over Jerusalem (and, most emphatically, No withdrawal from the Golan Heights). Those campaign pledges affirmed the profound beliefs of large majorities of the Jewish people attested to by professional polls prior to the June 1992 elections -- the elections that brought Labor to power.
Accordingly, Moshe Feiglin’s protest against implementation of Oslo was, in effect, a protest against the Government’s betrayal of its pledges to the nation on matters involving the very borders and capital of the state. His was a non-violent protest against a Government that did not truly represent the Jewish people, which is why that Government was rejected by the people in the May 1996 elections. That its successor, the Netanyahu Government, adhered to Oslo only proves that democratic elections alone do not provide an adequate foundation for democracy or popular sovereignty. Feiglin learned this the hard way.
Actually, Feiglin misconceived the nature of his protest by misconceiving the nature of Israel’s political system. He engaged in non-violent acts which he and many others believed to be acts of civil disobedience comparable to those associated with the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King. He naively applied certain principles of American democracy to the State of Israel, a State which is not and never has been a genuine democracy, as the present writer has so often demonstrated.
As is well known, Martin Luther King engaged in civil disobedience vis-à-vis the segregation laws of various American state legislatures. But he justified his acts of civil disobedience by arguing that those laws violated the American Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Israel has no constitution. The supreme law of the land—or so it seems—consists of statutes enacted by the Knesset. But the Knesset is controlled by the Government, which consists of party oligarchs to whom MKs defer in order to receive political preferment. (Note: the Knesset has never toppled a Labor- or Likud-led Government by a vote of no-confidence.)
Political power in Israel is therefore concentrated in the Government, whose WILL or policies are often quite contrary to the will or convictions of the people. Hence one ought not expect any judicial body to condone acts protesting implementation of the Government’s Oslo policy of “territory for peace” – precisely what Feiglin, a patriotic Jew, was trying to prevent.
We can now understand why the same act, which in a democracy is classified as “civil disobedience,” can be classified “sedition” in an oligarchy. In a democracy, an act of civil disobedience is directed not against the existence of the government but against a particular law. In an oligarchy, however, that same act will be treated by the government as an attack against itself. This is why civil disobedience in a democratic America may constitute sedition in undemocratic Israel.
At this point it may be asked: “Why aren’t many of Israel’s Arab citizens, who are known to have aided terrorists and have even committed terrorist acts against the state, indicted and convicted of sedition?” The reason is painfully simple. Neither Labor nor the Likud wants to alienate Arab voters!
The truth is, Feiglin was convicted of sedition for political reasons—and for such reasons he was banned by the Central Elections Commission from participating in the January 2003 Knesset elections. Presiding Judge Mishael Cheshin denounced Feiglin for having “refused to accept decisions made by a democratically elected government.” The trouble is that Israeli governments, once elected, betray the abiding beliefs of the Jewish people.
And so, what prevails in Israel is not democracy and the rule of law but oligarchy and the rule of men. This is inevitable in a country that lacks a written Constitution, a country, moreover, in which sovereignty is located in the State, not in the People—and certainly not in God.
Article Two on the subject will follow.
Posted by Tiburon at December 23, 2004 01:23 AM