Analysis from Israel
Bishara praised Hizbullah’s ‘guerrilla war,’ but Barak didn’t think he was lauding an ‘armed struggle.’

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.

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.

IN THE first speech, given in Umm el-Fahm, Bishara described Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 as follows: “Hizbullah won, and for the first time since 1967 we have tasted the taste of victory?€¦ Lebanon, the weakest of the Arab states, has presented a small model from which, if we examine it in depth, we can draw the conclusions necessary for success and victory?€¦ Hizbullah ensured that its guerrilla war would be well publicized, and each of its achievements greatly influenced the morale of the Israeli people, whose patience was slowly exhausted by the losses it absorbed from Hizbullah.”

In this speech, Bishara explicitly praised Hizbullah’s “guerrilla war” and the “losses” – i.e. casualties – it caused Israel; how that differs from praising “armed struggle” escapes me.

But even absent this explicit statement, is any adult Israeli so ignorant of how Hizbullah achieved its “victory” as to misunderstand the “model” that Bishara urged his listeners to follow? Given that Hizbullah never used any tactic except armed struggle, does Barak really think that Bishara was calling for peaceful negotiations?

THE SAME holds for the second speech, given in Syria, in which Bishara argued that since neither total war nor submission to Israeli dictates was acceptable, it was necessary to “expand the space” between these alternatives – the space “that the victory of the Lebanese resistance successfully exploited.”

Then, after warning that Israel was trying “to narrow this space,” he concluded: “It will be impossible to continue with this third option, the option of ‘resistance,’ except by re-enlarging this space, so that people will be able to carry out struggle and resistance.”

Once again, the reference to “the Lebanese resistance,” which consisted solely of armed struggle, as the paradigmatic example of this “third option” makes it hard to interpret this as anything but a call for facilitating armed struggle against Israel. Does Barak truly think that Bishara might instead have been advocating civil disobedience?

Why Barak was “unconvinced” of Bishara’s support for armed struggle remains a mystery, since he cited nothing in Bishara’s words as having led him to this conclusion. Indeed, the only semi-explanation he offered for being “unconvinced” was that Bishara “has not been questioned about this in the trial courts.” That is circular reasoning par excellence: We cannot prove that he supports armed struggle because he was never questioned in court, but he cannot be questioned in court because his immunity protects him unless we prove that he supports armed struggle.

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.

The writer, a veteran observer of the Israeli scene, is a weekly contributor.

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Physicians, Heal Thyselves

It’s no secret that many liberal Jews today view tikkun olam, the Hebrew phrase for “repairing the world,” as the essence of Judaism. In To Heal the World?, Jonathan Neumann begs to differ, emphatically. He views liberal Judaism’s love affair with tikkun olam as the story of “How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel.” In fact, he believes tikkun olam endangers Judaism itself. Anyone who considers such notions wildly over the top should make sure to read Neumann’s book—because one needn’t agree with everything he says to realize that his major concerns are disturbingly well-founded.

Neumann begins by explaining what he considers the modern liberal Jewish understanding of tikkun olam. It is taken, he says, not just as a general obligation to make the world a better place, but as a specific obligation to promote specific “universal” values and even specific policies—usually, the values and policies of progressive Democrats.

He then raises three major objections to this view. The first is that the only way to interpret Judaism as a universalist religion with values indistinguishable from those of secular progressives is by ignoring the vast majority of key Jewish texts, including the Bible and the Talmud, and millennia of Jewish tradition. After all, most of these texts deal with the history, laws, and culture of one specific nation—the Jews. The Bible’s history isn’t world history, nor are its laws (with a few exceptions) meant to govern any nation but the Jews. Judaism undeniably has universalist elements. But to ignore its particularist aspects is to ignore much of what makes it Judaism, which therefore corrupts our understanding of Judaism.

The second problem is that if Judaism has no purpose other than promoting the same values and policies touted by non-Jewish progressives, there’s no reason for Judaism to exist at all. Consequently, the tikkun olam version of Judaism really does threaten Judaism’s continued existence, and it’s no accident that the liberal Jewish movements that have embraced it are rapidly dwindling due to intermarriage and assimilation. After all, why should young American Jews remain Jewish when they can do everything they think Judaism requires of them even without being Jewish?

This also explains why, in Neumann’s view, tikkun olam Judaism endangers Israel. If there’s no reason for Judaism to exist, there’s certainly no reason for a Jewish state. Indeed, Israel is anathema to the tikkun olam worldview because it’s the embodiment of Jewish particularism—the view that Jews are a distinct nation and have their own history, culture, and laws rather than being merely promulgators of universal values. Thus it’s easy to understand why tikkun olam Jews increasingly abhor the Jewish state.

Read more
Archives