|
|
By Gary Rosenblatt
November 25, 2005
Reprinted with permission of The Jewish Week
Three months after Israel's disengagement from Gaza and four West Bank settlements, the bitterness between those who supported and opposed the government move no longer makes headlines. But it still festers.
Every week we receive updates from those who opposed the disengagement, charging that many of the 1,800 displaced families are still languishing without proper housing or compensation. Government sources say they are doing their best to provide services, but that it is a complicated process and takes time. In the end, it is difficult to determine whether the lag is due to Israeli bureaucracy, a perennial problem, or is intentional as a form of punishment against political opponents of the government.
Another important area of contention is the army and judicial system's treatment of opponents of disengagement who were arrested this summer, often held for weeks without charges and later released.
A recently released report by two anti-disengagement groups, the Israel Policy Center and Honenu Legal Defense Association, asserts that there were "extensive" civil rights violations, including "the suppression of legal dissent, widespread police brutality, false arrest and the harsh use of punitive detention to deter and intimidate."
The 37-page report details 24 cases, including the extended jailing of several minor girls (the youngest was 12) and of rabbinical student Asher Vodka, whose treatment was described in these pages. The report calls for a Knesset commission to investigate what it describes as "a great professional and moral failure" of Israel's legal and judicial systems.
Is that true, or was the government justified in its actions?
The central theme of the report is that the protesters were part of a "genuine movement of nonviolent civil disobedience" and should have been granted the presumption of innocence consistent with any democracy. Instead, the critics charge, the protests were viewed "as a form of rebellion," thus justifying harsh measures as a response.
While government officials have been reluctant to discuss the details of the charges, I spoke with a leading legal expert in Israel who sought, off the record, to provide context and perspective to the government's actions. The expert noted that the lawyers who put together the critical report are openly ideological, but respected, professionals.
At the core of this dilemma is the challenge for a society to maintain a delicate balance between social order and human rights. The matter at hand hinges on whether or not the opponents of disengagement imposed a real threat against the government's ability to implement its policy and whether they should have been punished for their ideological motivation.
The critics of the government say the protests were carried out in the spirit of the civil rights activists of the U.S. in the 1960s, calling attention to and opposing an injustice, in this case the government's forcibly removing families from their homes. Others argue that these people were not just seeking to express opinions but rather were trying to prevent the state from carrying out its objectives.
According to the legal expert, demonstrations to disrupt traffic on a massive scale or to gain entrance to Gaza were illegitimate disturbances of the peace, and the government was warranted in its tough actions.
Granted, the expert acknowledged, there were measures taken that were overly harsh, like the jailing of the young girls, but as a whole the government had a right to view the protests as a threat and respond in a forceful way.
It may also be true that the government wanted to teach the protesters a political lesson. Looking ahead to the very real possibility that Israel will opt to give up more, and larger, West Bank settlements down the negotiating road, the government may have wanted to get the message out that opposing such a decision will have tough consequences on opponents.
Still, reading the report on the government's alleged violations of the disengagement opponents' civil rights is a sad and painful exercise for anyone who values Israel's reputation as an outstanding democracy.
It is a fact that the disengagement was legal; the Knesset passed a law in February authorizing the forced evacuation. It is also true, though, that in reading the details of the cases cited in this report, one sees that fairness and human compassion on the part of the government were trumped by its fear of the opposition's will to thwart the disengagement plans.
According to the authors of the report, the Israeli judicial establishment viewed the anti-disengagement activities as "a kind of civil war to be fought by other, legal and quasi-legal, means." Their conclusion: "to win this kind of war is to lose it."
Their point, well taken, is that Israel's legitimacy was damaged by the actions taken against hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters.
One need not be an opponent of disengagement to conclude that while the government's heavy-handed actions were understandable politically, in judging the Jewish state by the high standards of human rights it prides itself on maintaining, its legal actions, particularly in punishing people for their political thoughts rather than their deeds, too often were excessive. It's a compelling lesson for the future that should not be dismissed as the rantings of the right.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
