Supreme Court forbids giving preference to Jews
צילום: חיים צח
Haman and the Supreme Court
Why is affirmative action okay for Arabs but not for Jews?
The Book of Esther says that the wicked Haman couldn't stand Mordechai, or any of his co-religionists, for that matter. He was particularly incensed that "their religion is different from any other nations" (Esther 3:8).
The talmud says that verse means Haman was offended the Jews wouldn't dine with the Persians and would marry them (Megilla 12b) us and wouldn't marry us. The hero of the story is called a "Jewish man", while Haman is called the Jews' "tormentor" (ibid 3:10).
This week the government of Israel/Ishmael declared a policy of affirmative action for Arabs. "The ministers accepted the acting prime minister's proposal to encourage the hiring of workers from the Arab sector in government offices," we were told. We got the fantastic, enlightened concept from the ministerial head: "affirmative action."
Not for Jews
And what do you know, just two weeks ago the Supreme Court nixed the idea of designating certain regions "national preference" areas, such as the Negev Desert or the Galilee, designations that would have opened the door for the government to allocate special funds for education and social services, if the designation failed to include Arab towns as well.
The chief justice, who headed the panel of judges (of course), went one step further by ruling that even if the government were to establish non-ethnicity based criteria for such funding but it were to become clear that the beneficiaries of the additional monies would mainly be Jews – such allocations would be fundamentally wrong.
You understand? Affirmative action for Arabs is fine, even positive. But for Jews? Yeccch. "Fundamentally wrong."
I don't really know where to direct my criticism – towards a government that gives preference to Arabs, or to the Supreme Court that forbids giving preference to Jews. Are we in the throes of an inverted maelstrom? Are we in a race for self-destruction?
Trojan Court
The Supreme Court case mentioned above is the direct descendant of a previous case that nixed the idea of allotting state lands for Jews-only development. Long ago state allocations to IDF veterans were stopped, under threat from the Trojan Court.
In doing so the court practically defined itself as the "tormentor of the Jewish state."
Unfortunately, this admittedly harsh phrase accurately describes my deepest feelings, and the feelings of many, many of my colleagues, about a judicial establishment in this country that has overstepped its bounds into ideological grounds on which it does not belong.
The Chief Justice, infected with liberal prejudices, uses laws passed by the Knesset such as the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty as tools to further his own world outlook.
He has rejected outright any possibility to give any real meaning to the phrase "Jewish State" as a reason to give preferential treatment to Jews, even though the State of Israel is defined as such in its basic laws and in the Declaration of Independence.
A comparison
I would invite anyone who believes that interpreting the law is objective and that "the law is the law" to read dissenting opinion in the original lands case, written by Justice Yaakov Kedmi: "Despite the supreme value of equality, we must not ignore other values, including the value of national security, and if the circumstances so justify – in the power to limit or even curtail the value of equality."
Do the differences between justices Barak and Kedmi stem from the fact that they one is a greater expert than the other? Certainly not. Their difference of opinion stems from their differing world views: A Zionist justice rules one way, the other rules the opposite. We can then ask: Mr. Chief Justice – are you on our side, or are you here to torment us?
Basic questions
The debate has nothing to do with questions about allocating lands or monetary benefits to preferred regions. The issue delves to the most basic level of our existence here on the shores of the Mediterranean, of the status of the Jewish majority and of the Palestinian Arab minority.
This is the central feature of the struggle between faithful Zionists, general and religious alike, and supporters of a state of all its citizens.
This is the building block of all the internal struggles and "civil wars" going on in our society. The Law of Return is explicitly discriminatory because it provides for unlimited immigration only to descendants of Jews. Despite this, the law has yet to be overturned.
Everyone understands the State of Israel was established to be the national home of the Jewish people scattered throughout the Diaspora. There is no reason in the world, and no legalistic wrangling could possible justify, to give preferable treatment to Jewish people wanting to immigrate to Israel while at the same time forbidding "preferential treatment" to Jews in other contexts.
Are we also drawing near to the day on which the Ottomanistic chief justice will also throw out the law of return?
Anyone trying to figure out the logic in this difference will get mired down in absurdity, and I believe its source is at the deepest level: Jewish self-hatred, a phenomenon far more threatening than the anti-Semitic hatred of Haman, tormentor of the Jews.
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen is the head of the "Tsomet" institute in Alon Shvut
