Mr. Double Standard?, Evelyn Gordon
Excerpts;
“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.”