The right context

[Violet_Crumble]

The disingenuity of the government's international comparisons is evident when one compares politicians' rhetoric for audiences within Israel with the diplomatic discourse abroad.

By Hassan Jabareen

The government frequently tries to justify its anti-democratic bills by comparing them to laws in democratic states. For example, it contends that the newly proposed bills regarding the nomination procedures for Supreme Court justices reflect the process used in the United States. When the coalition passes anti-Arab legislation like the "Nakba law," which lets the finance minister cut the budgets of publicly funded institutions that commemorate the Nakba, it argues that we have to defend Israel's values as a "Jewish and democratic" state, by citing the German legal principle of "militant democracy." The government also has made similar comparisons to justify bills that would severely limit foreign funding to local human rights organizations.

It is important for governments to compare themselves with other nations. Given the current state of affairs, it is perhaps even a good sign that the Netanyahu coalition still believes it needs international legitimacy to justify these bills. However, when a comparison does not consider the other nations' social, political and historical circumstances, it can be inaccurate and misleading. It is true that some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by "Western" democracies: the Holocaust, slavery, apartheid and segregation. But today, regimes such as those in Germany, South Africa and the U.S., whatever their defects, are based on fundamental civil rights and respect for separation of powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a long and distinguished history of constitutional review; it has intervened in numerous laws passed by Congress and in executive political decisions. A decade ago, in Bush v. Gore, it even decided who would be president, based on a majority vote of just one justice. No political leader called for limiting the court's power in response to this decision, which was fully implemented.

While U.S. citizens elected an African-American president, in Israel the Knesset tries to disqualify the Arab minority's political parties from every election because those parties advocate full equality and inclusion, "a state for all of its citizens." When Germans use the term "militant democracy," they are referring to defending the rights of ethnic minorities from racist politicians. And while the EU wants to promote human rights abroad, the Netanyahu government seems far less committed to these values than it does to limiting the EU's ability to promulgate them in Israel, by its repeated attempts to restrict NGO funding.

The disingenuity of the government's international comparisons is evident when one compares politicians' rhetoric for audiences within Israel with the diplomatic discourse they employ abroad. At home, this government harshly criticizes the Supreme Court; abroad, the Foreign Ministry boasts proudly that Israel has the world's strongest high court. While officials criticize former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak's rulings regarding Palestinian cases, the Foreign Ministry hands out a booklet at conferences abroad listing these same cases as evidence that Israel is committed to the rule of law and democratic values. While right-wing lawmakers incite daily against Arab Knesset members, Israeli officials support their argument that Israel is not an apartheid state by raising the fact of Arab Knesset representation.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-right-context-1.397580