The humiliation of Israeli democracy!

The Israeli media, whether heard, visual, or read, has been praising the unique Israeli democracy, and extolling it in the arena of Arab domination and individual rule. This was accompanied by a tidal wave in the Western media praising Israeli democracy, with sweeping Western political support for the Zionist colony established on Palestinian lands., which encouraged accusing any person or entity that criticized the Israeli behavior of being anti-Semitic.

This common saying collapsed in recent days after the Israeli Knesset adopted a law to limit its jurisdiction and prevent the Israeli Supreme Court from addressing decisions issued by the Israeli government or its workers on any level. Rather, it considered them immune and does not accept any way of review, under the pretext that the Israeli government is elected By the people, and that the court is appointed by appointment, and the appointee cannot stand in the face of the elected or in the face of achieving its goals. The will of the people, who possess all three powers: executive, legislative, and judicial.

The truth is that the claim of Israeli democracy is false and does not stand up to the universally accepted legal and political rules formulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 Covenants of Civil, Political, Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. In times of armed conflict, it becomes meager compared to what is included in international humanitarian law, especially the Fourth Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and international custom and international justice in the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials after World War II. The Rome Statute of 1998 confirmed it when it established the International Criminal Court.

Many people believe, either out of ignorance, naivety, or being drawn into the flames of public opinion and the various media outlets, that merely holding elections achieves democracy. This is a lot of confusion, because election is the only formal democratic means to assume political power in any country after other means such as coup, wealth and family failed to be a legitimate means to assume political power, but the pillars of democracy are another matter entirely different. The latter is a means that connects those who were elected to assume political power in a legitimate way. As for democracy, it is a set of values ​​decided by political and legal scholars for all the inhabitants of the earth, with minor differences here and there.

At the head of these rules stands the principle of separation of powers. It is agreed that every country in this long world has three powers or (three powers as they say in the Maghreb), which are the legislative, executive and judicial powers. Each of these authorities has a specific competence, which it does not deviate from and cannot add to it except by amending the constitution in it. For example, no authority can attack another authority, otherwise we will be in a jungle where the strong eat the weak. And the strong here is the executive authority that owns the money, the army, the security, the staff, and even the media. Thus, the executive authority can besiege other powerless authorities, restrict their powers, and even blackmail them. This is what happened recently in the Israeli judicial reform legislation. Despite the appeasement of the Israeli judicial position and support for the Israeli governmental and military measures in the interior, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the matter has now deviated from this customary matter, to besiege and affect those who hold opinions contrary to the Israeli government. And the authority of the Israeli Supreme Court became restricted with regard to the decisions of the executive authority, as if the decisions of the Israeli government had become immune to any appeal against them. Consequently, the principle of separation of powers has become an effect after an eye, and therefore the Israeli executive authority can measure and decide according to its size and according to its desires, and this is what it began to do when it abolished the so-called reasonableness argument.

This constitutes a clear demolition of what has been called internal Israeli democracy. As for Israeli democracy towards Arab citizens and towards the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it has not existed since it was militarily occupied by the Israeli occupation forces.

The state's legal systems emphasize the need for a constitution to define the boundaries between the three authorities and to protect individual rights and freedoms in order to achieve democracy. The entity is considered one of the few political groupings in this world that does not have a constitution, despite the passage of more than seven decades since its founding, while the United States enacted a constitution nearly two and a half centuries ago. And the matter does not need much thinking, because Israeli democracy did not want the Palestinian Arab citizen to enjoy the benefits of democracy, so it did not seriously seek to draw up a constitution for this new grouping, although all the new political groupings in this world took as a first step after their independence to draw up a constitution that outlines their democracy and political system. . But the Israeli democracy refused to do that, so that the Palestinians inside would remain captive to the emergency regulations of 1945 and not come close to achieving their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Israel is rightfully accused of being a state of apartheid, and this accusation in itself is enough to destroy the claim of Israeli democracy altogether. It seems that the entity tried to deny this racial discrimination by joining the Charter of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the Charter for the Prohibition of Torture of 1984. However, this accession did not negate the reality of Israeli racial discrimination, but rather it was a means to sow ashes in the eyes. A closer look at the issues of urban planning, organization, housing, budgets, health and education reveals flagrant racial discrimination towards the Palestinian Arab citizen. In serious issues related to freedoms, opinion, movement, marriage, children, land and real estate, racial discrimination appears more clearly. Perhaps what is happening in terms of killing in the Arab community in the Palestinian interior and the failure of the Israeli security forces to stop this phenomenon in which the agents of Israeli democracy participate is a matter that calls for questioning. Among the manifestations of Israeli democracy is the prevention of love between the Palestinians and the reunion of them, their children and their families in a vile law that is renewed annually in the purity of true Israeli democracy. As for the issue of torture, which the Israeli Supreme Court called moderate physical pressure, as if it was coordinating the issue with the Israeli security services to pass and authorize it against the Palestinian citizen, it is an issue in itself that proves without any doubt the weakness of Israeli democracy.

The problem is that the entity has agreed and ratified these international conventions that prohibit violations of human rights, and it practices them heart and soul.

Israeli democracy legitimized and authorized the seizure of the occupied Palestinian lands, financed the establishment of the settlements, and even provided them with financial, tax and logistical facilities. How can a democracy be based on the occupation of the land of others, and for this democracy to accept that the occupation continues for five and a half decades, and to control another people and even enslave them in cheap labor and temporal and spatial restrictions? Isn't the occupation temporary in nature and according to its charters? Isn't the establishment, planning, financing and inhabiting of settlements a war crime and a flagrant violation of the rules of international humanitarian law, which is a cornerstone of democracy? Is it reasonable for the Israeli Supreme Court to adopt an approach that contradicts the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the wall, rather than respecting it? Does democracy allow, through its racial discrimination, that some Israeli judges are settlers and residents of the settlements, and that the Palestinians do not enjoy their lands and freedoms?

If there is democracy in Israel, why does it not join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as democracies around the world do? Why not accept the delegations of the United Nations to investigate many Israeli crimes, including the killing of Sherine Abu Aqleh?

Why not allocate land for the young generation in the Arab regions? Why not stop the Arab bloodshed in order to protect the right to life and physical integrity? Why do you not respect the religious freedom of Muslims in Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and the religious places of all Palestinians?

The right-wing Israeli shovel of demolishing the limited Israeli democracy that belongs to Israelis exclusively, this time affected a stronghold that I believe is untouchable, which is the Israeli Supreme Court, from which the Palestinian has always suffered, and its judiciary and judges. It seems that the rope on the tractor and the upcoming Israeli legislative chain will make the Israeli judiciary an obedient tool in the hands of a political party and make it lose its impartiality and independence, and make the alleged Israeli democracy an effect after an eye!!!