The Non-existence of the Rule of Law in Israel
Reader comment on item: [Dennis Ross on] Strange Twists in Syrian-Israeli Diplomacy

Submitted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg (Israel), Aug 7, 2004 at 18:31

The above article exemplifies what Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivilin refers to as the "gang of law" that governs Israel. He was alluding to the many arbitrary rulings of Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, on the one hand, and to the many arbitrary decisions of prime minister Ariel Sharon, on the other. The Lauder-Asad "diplomacy" (presumably sanctioned by Israel's government) is on a par with the Omri Sharon-Arafat "diplomacy" initiated when Sharon pere became PM after the February 2001 elections.

What we see here, inter alia, is a contempt for democatic procedures by public officials who never cease to intone the word "democracy" to advance their personal agendas. But the "inter alia" is no less significant. Here we see so-called democrats negotiating with Arab tyrants as if the latter could be trusted to adhere to any agreement. (Has not Egypt violated its treaty with Israel in countless ways?) So Lauder and Ross, like Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon, fall into the trap of dignifying tyrants and thereby perpetuating their tyrannies. And of course these Jews disarm the Jewish people in the process. Did it ever occur to these Jews that the very policy of "territory for peace" arouses the contempt of Arabs, encourages them to pursue their militant if not genocidal objectives? Should it not be obvious that this empirically as well as ideologically indefensible policy indicates that the Jews are not at all serious about their religious heritage, and will sacrifice it for the potage of what Sadat cynically called "a piece of paper"?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.