By Ronen Sebag*

On June 10, 2001, Israeli-Arab Knesset Member (MK) Azmi Bishara ("Balad" Party) attended a ceremony in Syria marking the first anniversary of the death of Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad. In his speech to the ceremony's attendees - which included Hizbullah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command faction (PFLP-GC), Ahmad Jibril, Hamas leaders, and leaders of other militant Palestinian organizations based in Syria - Bishara called for the Arab world "to unite against the warmongering Sharon government,"(1) and encouraged Arabs to adopt "the path of resistance."(2)

Bishara's speech angered Israelis across the political and public spectrum. The debate following his speech included both legal and political aspects. Government officials focused their arguments on legal grounds, while opposition leaders focused on its political implications. However, both government officials and opposition leaders avoided the complex debate: How can Israel, as a democracy, deal with Israeli-Arab citizens siding with its enemies, and what actions could Israel take to deal with such incidents in the future?

The Legal Aspect

Most Israeli officials criticizing Bishara argued that his statements have gone too far and crossed a fine line separating free speech from incitement. They argued that democratic free speech does not include endorsement of belligerency and advocacy to overthrow a democratically elected government. The Israeli public voiced a similar reaction: according to a poll published on June 12, 2001, 84% of Jewish Israelis supported pursuing legal action against Bishara, and 77% supported passing legislation that would disqualify him as an MK.(3)

Following Bishara's speech, MKs called for border authorities to detain him for questioning, and Attorney General (A-G) Elyakim Rubinstein suggested on June 10, 2001, that Bishara could face a criminal investigation when returning to Israel.(4) Rubinstein also spoke to the Registrar of Parties, attorney Elisha Sidon , about the option of disbanding Bishara's Balad party.(5) Coalition Whip MK Ze'ev Baum called on Public Security Minister Uzi Landau to order the detainment of Bishara "for conspiring with the enemy,"(6) as Interior Minister Eli Yishai asked the A-G to consider criminally indicting him.(7) Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit added, "Arab MKs should not be allowed to use the democratic tools that Israel provides [them with] in order to act against the democracy."(8)

The Knesset Interior Committee discussed revoking Bishara's citizenship. Deputy Attorney-General Menny Mazouz said that citizenship could be revoked "if there has been a violation of loyalty to the state."(9) On June 12, 2001, the Knesset House Committee and Ethics Committee met to discuss lifting Bishara's parliamentary immunity. The joint committee meeting was arranged by Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg.(10) However, House Committee Chair Yossi Katz opposed putting Bishara on trial stating, "it would be a serious breach of the right to freedom of speech."(11)

On June 12, 2001, the A-G announced the opening of a criminal investigation against Bishara as a suspect in inciting and "assisting an enemy during war [as Israel and Syria are officially still at war]."(12) The decision was reached following a meeting the A-G held with Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit, State Prosecutor Edna Arbel, and with Israeli security agencies.(13)

The office of the A-G emphasized that this investigation was not an infringement on, or in violation of, Bishara's freedom of speech, since his statements qualify under "offenses relating to the support of a terrorist organization."(14) The office also added that, in this case, Bishara's immunity is ineffectual since his actions go against the rules governing a citizen's loyalty to the state. The violation of these rules by an elected member of the parliament is considered both a legal and an ethical offense.

The Political Aspect

Bishara expressed amazement at the harsh Israeli reactions against his speech, and said, "There is a dangerous racist atmosphere in Israel."(15) He defended his statements by saying that they only represented advocacy for the Palestinian cause, which he had done many times before, even when speaking from the Knesset podium. Bishara stated, "Opposition to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a legitimate popular opposition."(16)

Those who opposed Bishara's statements on political grounds said that the statements were made in order to score him political points in the Arab world. These statements were extremely detrimental to the constituency which elected Bishara to represent them - the Israeli-Arabs - and further damaged the already fragile Arab-Jewish relationship in Israel following the October 2000 demonstrations. Hence, the main argument here was that Bishara's statements were harmful to the Israeli-Arab community.

Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg said he believed Bishara's statements were "the harshest words ever spoken against Israel by an Israeli MK," and added that the statements struck "a deep blow to all those trying to resurrect relations between Israel's Jewish and Arab communities."(17) An editorial published in Ha'aretz wrote, "An abyss separates between support for the rights of the Palestinian people...which is supported by many Israeli citizens and MKs, Arabs and Jews, and a call to Israel's enemies by one of its citizens - and not just any citizen, but a legislator representing its citizens - to embark on a broad front of armed struggle against Israel."(18)

Even those among Israel's far left, including Israeli-Arabs, criticized Bishara's statements. They were aggravated most by the fact that his statements could now be utilized by those elements within Israeli society who see in the Israeli-Arabs a Trojan horse. Labor Faction Chairman Effi Oshaya said, "Bishara's appearance...deepens the divide between Jews and Arabs in Israel."(19)

Lutfi Mash'ur, the Editor of Al-Sinara weekly, wrote that Bishara "does not represent the Arab population in Israel," and that his statements "were made in order to advance his reputation in the Arab world."(20) Dr. Amal Jamal of Tel Aviv University wrote, "...our [Israeli-Arabs] citizenship obliges us to be careful and sensitive with regards to the type of legitimate protest and struggle...there is a gap between a positive call for the strengthening of the peace process, and a statement that might be interpreted as a call for 'struggle.'"(21) MK Mosi Raz of Meretz said that Bishara's statements were "extremely detrimental," and "served as grounds for discord between Jews and Arabs" in Israel.(22) MK Yosef Paritzki of Shinui added, "Those who were hurt the most from MK Bishara's statements are those he is supposed to represent - the Israeli-Arabs."(23) One of Meretz's leaders, MK Ran Cohen, wrote "he, who was elected by Israeli citizens, who operates in the Parliament which carries the symbol [of the State of Israel], who sustains his political actions using the budget of the State of Israel...has the right to lawfully represent the positions of those who elected him. However, at the same time, he must also lawfully represent his civic responsibilities..."(24)

Conclusion

Since the beginning of the Oslo accords, more Israeli-Arabs identify with the Palestinian cause. This trend has become particularly acute and problematic since the eruption of the current round of violence. The Bishara case is indicative of this development. The question is: How will Israel handle similar cases of incitement in the future?

The Bishara case challenged Israel on various fronts. It triggered a mixture of questions relating to the nature of incitement, freedom of speech, the status of Israeli-Arabs in the Jewish State, and the ways in which a democracy may defend itself without eroding its own democratic character.

Israel has laws to deal with incidents of incitement. To prosecute a person for incitement, Israeli law requires the existence of "imminent certainty" that an incident of incitement will lead to an act of violence. Such wording renders it almost impossible to prosecute for incitement since it is difficult to prove "imminent certainty" that an expression will lead to an act of violence.

Aware of this problem, Israeli legislators suggested an amendment to the law, according to which the prosecutor only has to prove "reasonable probability" that an incident of incitement could lead to an act of violence. The problem with this amendment was that it was too open-ended. Since such a law would include a broad range of expressions as incitements leading to violence, the legislators proposed another amendment to the bill making the "reasonable probability" clause applicable to terrorists and ex-Nazis only. However, due to the problematical nature of both amendments, they are still being debated in the Knesset.

In the Bishara case, the A-G directed the investigation to possible security offenses while evading an investigation on possible incitement offenses. However, it is unlikely that Bishara will be successfully prosecuted on security grounds since he did not commit such offenses, while his possible offenses of incitement remain uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

Bishara's case shed light on an extraordinary problem that is likely to further complicate Arab-Israeli relations in Israel. Bishara is not merely an Arab citizen who spoke against the survival of the state. He is a member of Israel's legislature, the primary function of which is, as in any nation, to defend the nation's existence and protect its citizens.

* Ronen Sebag is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.

Endnotes:

(1) Yediot Ahronot, June 11, 2001.
(2) Ha'aretz. June 11, 2001.
(3) Dr. Mina Tzemach. The Dahaf Institute. Yediot Ahronot, June 12, 2001.
(4) Ha'aretz, June 11, 2001.
(5) By law, the Registrar can ask the courts to break up a political party if it is found to be involved in illegal activities.
(6) Ha'aretz, June 11, 2001.
(7) Yediot Ahronot, June 11, 2001.
(8) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(9) The Jerusalem Post, June 12, 2001.
(10) Yediot Ahronot, June 12, 2001.
(11) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(12) Yediot Ahronot, June 14, 2001.
(13) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(14) Yediot Ahronot, June 14, 2001.
(15) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(16) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(17) Ha'aretz, June 12, 2001.
(18) Ha'aretz, June 13, 2001.
(19) The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 2001.
(20) Ynet (Yediot Ahronot online), June 11, 2001.
(21) Ha'aretz, June 19, 2001.
(22) Yediot Ahronot, June 12, 2001.
(23) Yediot Ahronot, June 12, 2001.
(24) Ynet (Yediot Ahronot online), June 11, 2001.

Link & Sources:

Memri