IMRA'S WEEKLY COMMENTARY ON ISRAEL NATIONAL RADIO - 2 January 2003

Aaron Lerner Date: 2 January 2003

(Broadcast in English on Thursday nights at 10:00 PM on 98.7 FM and on 1539
AM throughout Israel - recording available on
http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com and www.IsraelNationalRadio.com)

#1 Sabbath commerce can't be a local decision

There are parties - even one that enjoys the support of religious immigrants
from the West - that support making Sabbath commerce a local decision.

I frankly don't believe many of these well meaning people appreciate the
significance of this issue. This is an issue that can have a direct impact
on anyone whose family members wish to observe the Sabbath.

This is not a question of "live and let live".

When your neighbors decide that the stores in the area should be open on the
Sabbath then you or your children will have a considerably harder time
getting a job in retail business in your neighborhood.

And the retail sector will only be the start. One of the banks crosses the
line and the only bank that will end up hiring religious in branches will be
Bank Mizrachi. And on and on and on.

It may be that the religious immigrants from the West who support this party
are not sensitive about it because they never encountered Sabbath work as an
issue in Israel. Maybe I am more sensitive about it because 20 years ago,
when I applied for a job at a large factory here as an economist, the
manager told me, smiling ear to ear, that since the line also operates on
the Sabbath, that out of "fairness", everyone in management participates in
a Sabbath shift in rotation. I didn't take the job.

I have my own company and am not involved in retail trade so Sabbath
commerce doesn't impact me directly. But I have kids and nephews and nieces
etc. all coming into the job market in the coming years. And I don't want
them to be discriminated against. It is as simple as that.

"Live and let live?" Absolutely. I live in a mixed neighborhood and my
secular neighbors go off to the beach while others go to synagogue. But the
mall isn't open for retail business on the Sabbath. Yet. But my guess is
that if Sabbath commerce was solely a local matter and there was a vote,
there would be at least 51% in favor. And by some party's standards that
would be enough. And in this small country even if the vote failed the first
time, once Kfar Saba and the others in the area introduced Sabbath commerce
the pressure would be so great it would definitely pass the next time. Not
only that: why shouldn't my kids be able to compete for jobs in Kfar Sava?

It would be a tragedy if Jews in the Jewish State are denied the right to
observe the Sabbath. And it would be an irony if religious Western
immigrants, through their support for a party that wants to make Sabbath
commerce a local decision, brings that day closer.

#2 Judge Cheshin's ideology is showing

I was frankly embarrassed when I heard the arguments and explanations
Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin gave, as chairman of the Central
Elections Committee, for his opposition to the Committee's decision to
disqualify the candidacies of MK's Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara. Embarrassed
because he so clearly put his personal ideology over the law.

Cheshin argued that while he wasn't happy with the remarks of Tibi and
Bishara that they were "borderline".

Let's read the law Judge Cheshin was supposed to apply:

Basic Law: The Knesset
...
7A. A list of candidates will not take part in the elections to the Knesset
nor shall an individual person be a candidate for the Knesset if the goals
or deeds of the list or the deeds of the person explicitly or implicitly,
are one of the following:

(1) reject the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic
state;

(2) incite to racism;

(3) support the armed struggle of an enemy state or terrorist organization
against the State of Israel."

The operative question? Do Tibi and Bishara, through their actions,
explicitly or implicitly support the armed struggle of an enemy state or
terrorist organization against the State of Israel?

That's "against the State of Israel" - not just "against civilians".

Both Tibi and Bishara are on record supporting the "struggle" against the
"occupation". Even if one takes their remarks against attacks inside the
Green Line at face value, unless they explicitly say otherwise, that means
that they still support attacks on Israeli soldiers and settlers beyond the
Green Line.

And during the course of the hearing both were offered the opportunity to
state for the record that they opposed attacks on soldiers and settlers
beyond the Green Line. That's all they had to do - just make the statement -
and they would still be running for the Knesset today.

But both declined the opportunity.

This is "borderline"? Hardly.

Now Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin has every right to hold a personal
opinion that people who support murdering Israelis beyond the Green Line as
part of a struggle against the State of Israel should have the right to
serve in the Knesset of the State of Israel.

And he has every right to run in the next election and try to change Article
7A to fit his ideology. But he isn't sitting in the Knesset. He is acting
as a judge. And as a judge he has to make his judgement based on what the
law is and not what he would like it to be.

But won't the Israeli Arabs be alienated if Tibi and Bishara are barred from
running? I can't think of a greater insult to the Israeli Arab community
then to assert that only a politician who supports murdering Israeli
soldiers and settlers can represent them in the Knesset.

I can only hope that next week, when eleven members of the Supreme Court
meet to consider Tibi's and Bishara's appeals that they have enough respect
for the law that they decide according to Article 7A and leave their
political leanings out of this.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6106666 subscriber 4811
Website: http://www.imra.org.il