Israel Matzav

Anyone bewildered by last Wednesday's violence at Amona ought to read the High Court of Justice ruling on Azmi Bishara issued that same day. Most people undoubtedly consider violence immoral. But when no less an institution than the Supreme Court proclaims that advocating violence constitutes part of a Knesset member's legitimate duties, it is hardly surprising that a minority has become convinced that Israeli society condones and rewards it.

The ruling stemmed from Bishara's request that the court cancel his 2001 indictment for supporting a terrorist organization, which was based on two speeches in which he extolled Hizbullah. Bishara argued that his remarks were protected by his substantive parliamentary immunity, which grants an MK absolute protection from prosecution for anything said or done "in the course of fulfilling his duties, or for the sake of fulfilling his duties, as a Knesset member."

Justices Aharon Barak, Eliezer Rivlin and Esther Hayut all agreed that this immunity is not unlimited; inter alia, it does not cover "support for armed struggle" against Israel. But Barak, backed by Rivlin (Hayut dissented), ruled that Bishara did not specifically laud "armed struggle"; he merely lauded a terrorist organization - a lesser offense that may be covered by substantive immunity. [ Aren't we being told all the time that Hamas' and Hizbullah's 'charitable organizations' aren't engaged in terorrism? Why is the Israeli Supreme Court supporting this kind of distinction - which the Euroweenies have used as an excuse to avoid declaring Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror organizations? CiJ]

In principle, this distinction is reasonable: One could, for instance, praise Hamas's welfare activities without condoning its suicide bombings. But no ordinary reading of Bishara's speeches could possibly support Barak's conclusion in this case.

...

HAVING NEVERTHELESS somehow concluded that Bishara did not support armed struggle, Barak proceeded to the next issue: whether, given this, his speeches enjoyed immunity. Although support for armed struggle never has immunity, mere support for a terrorist organization may or may not, depending on circumstances.

Here, too, Barak jumped through hoops to protect Bishara. For instance, he argued, Bishara's comments about Hizbullah were not "central parts" of either speech, and therefore deserved immunity. That may or may not be true of the Syria speech, but it is highly unconvincing regarding the Umm el-Fahm speech. Although the speech was given at a conference whose official subject was the 33rd anniversary of the Six Day War, in the invitations Bishara specified that the June 2000 conference would take place "in the atmosphere of the victory of the Lebanese resistance." And since invitations generally reflect an event's primary focus, the inclusion of Hizbullah's "resistance" on the invitation makes it hard to argue that Bishara deemed this a minor issue.

Even more outrageous was Barak's argument that Bishara's remarks deserved immunity because political speeches are among an MK's core duties. Speaking to constituents, as Bishara did in Umm el-Fahm, is indeed an MK's duty. But it is hard to see how urging said constituents to learn from Hizbullah's "model" - which consists exclusively of armed attacks against the very state to which all MKs pledge their allegiance - really accords with anyone's "duties as an MK."

And the argument is even more far-fetched regarding the Syria speech. Under what conceivable definition of an MK's duties could they include traveling (illegally) to an enemy state, sharing a dais with wanted terrorists such as Ahmed Jibril and Hassan Nasrallah, praising said enemy state for having "constantly expanded" the "space" within which Hizbullah-style "resistance" flourishes, and urging it to continue its efforts in that direction?

In their ruling, Barak and Rivlin clearly eviscerated the law, which was written precisely to deny such statements immunity from prosecution. But by deeming advocacy of violence a legitimate parliamentary "duty," they have also made it much harder to explain to ordinary citizens why practicing violence is nevertheless unacceptable.

Read it all.