Decision to outlaw Israel's Islamic Movement criminalizes thousands
There
is no evidence that the northern branch was involved in terrorist
activities; banning the organization will serve to radicalize Israeli
Arabs.
haaretz.com
The defense minister’s decision to outlaw the
northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel is based on the
Defense (Emergency) Regulations from 1945, a draconian Mandatory law and
relic of the colonial era that gives state authorities far-reaching
powers. This law, a British inheritance that the Knesset itself never
legislated, should be replaced by a modern law adapted for a democratic
state that can deal with organizations involved in violence.
When these authorities are
still provided for, they should, as in any case when the regime violates
basic rights, only be exercised when there is solid evidence of a
danger to state and public security. In this case it is violating
freedom of assembly, freedom of political expression and probably
freedom of religion.
This is especially important
in light of the declaration’s serious repercussions. Anyone who belongs
to an outlawed organization, acts on its behalf, holds a job in it, does
any work for it, attends one of its meetings or possesses one of its
books, periodicals, fliers or any other publication may be prosecuted
and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. In addition to all this,
anyone in possession of organization property must inform the finance
minister, who is authorized to confiscate it.
If
so, the declaration criminalizes and puts in serious danger of
punishment all who maintain contact, however weak it may be, with the
northern branch, despite the declarations of senior officials (quoted
elsewhere in Haaretz). According to one of them, only a few of the
members of the organization are involved in nationalist activity. This
statement attests to the inappropriateness of outlawing an entire
organization.
The fact that the leader of
the northern branch, Ra’ad Salah, was convicted of incitement to
violence indicates precisely that the law provides the authorities with
the tools for dealing with incitement to violence and terror based on
evidence, without taking the present steps. The fact that the decision
was made without a hearing, as the rules of natural justice demand, and
without evidence against the movement being presented to its members, is
disturbing.
The announcement stated that
outlawing the movement was required “in the name of state security,
public safety and public order.” The government announced that it had
taken a “vital step to prevent the loss of life.” However, such
proclamations do not jive with the statement by the head of the Shin Bet
security service, Yoram Cohen, that the security services do not have
any evidence linking the northern branch directly with terror
activities.
While the Prime
Minister’s Office declared that the movement is a “sister” of Hamas and
that there is “close and secret” cooperation between the two, it did not
provide such evidence. Cohen’s statement, which also warned that the
damage of the declaration would outweigh any benefit, casts much doubt
that the required amount of evidence for such a decision exists.
The fact that the decision was
made at the political level, while the professional ranks in charge of
state security had reservations about it, raises the suspicion that the
main motivation was political and not security related. If this is the
case, it would be the basis for its invalidation.
It seems the timing of the
decision’s implementation, against the background of ISIS terror in
Paris, is also political, and that the government sought to exploit it
to tie in to terror by another Islamist body, while demonizing a
sizeable movement and attempting to blur the difference between it and
organizations like Hamas.
The government’s claim that a
significant part of recent terror attacks resulted from incitement by
the movement does not attest to its involvement in terror attacks. In
cases of suspicion of incitement to violence and terror, it is proper to
implement relevant legal proceedings against those who do the inciting.
The Shin Bet’s assessment that
the move will not only stir unrest but also drive the northern branch
underground also attests to the danger of taking this step. When there
is no real evidence of involvement in violence and terror, outlawing a
political and religious organization is liable to miss the declared
target of maintaining security and public order, and instead lead to
radicalization and concealment.
Commenti
Posta un commento