Indignation is not a policy

We need to fear a public atmosphere that gives sanction to decisions whereby certain crimes, or worse, certain groups of offenders, are no longer subject to due process.

January 22, 2014 21:14
4 minute read.
Alleged price tag attack in West Bank village of Jaloud, Dec 7, 2013

Price tag attack in West Bank village of Jalud 370. (photo credit: Salma a-Dibi, B'Tselem)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user uxperience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew, Ivrit
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Repor
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

In the decades prior to the fall of Communism the legal systems of most Central European states looked a lot like their Western counterparts.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

People accused of the crimes such as fraud, assault, even murder were arrested, investigated and tried pretty much like in the West. The accused had the right to defense counsel.

Acquittals were rare, but the same could be said of other legal systems – such as Israel’s.

It was only when an indictment had a whiff of politics about it that the system exhibited Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde characteristics.

Due process was suspended.

Guilt and punishment were determined in advance.

Evidence was irrelevant. The accused was usually convicted of a crime he never contemplated committing; his real crime was to open his mouth or use his pen.

Israel’s criminal justice system tends to exhibit Jekyll- Hyde characteristics of its own.

Crimethink, to use Orwell’s term, is punished far less often than in Eastern Europe before 1989, though the phenomenon is not unknown – think of Margalit Har-Shefi, who was jailed for allegedly knowing what Yigal Amir was thinking, or of Elitzur Segal, who received a fine and suspended sentence for writing nasty things about a former IDF chief rabbi.

But in cases with political overtones a suspect’s due process rights are liable to take a beating. Thus the state prosecution authorized totally unwarranted wiretaps of Haim Ramon’s phones when it was trying to put him away for sexual harassment. During disengagement, Israel’s state prosecution took a long, wholesale and officially sanctioned walk away from the law, using pretrial arrest to deter protesters and looking the other way when police beat them up.

It’s about to happen again, with Israel’s “price tag” malefactors as the next set of victims.

“Price tag” hooligans are motivated by a combination of half-baked ideology, racism and contempt for the law.

Their actions are stupid and criminal. The phenomenon is spreading and justifies devoting more police resources to it, as well as stern punishment for offenders – once they’re convicted in open court.

Price-tag offenders are not, however, by any stretch of the imagination terrorists against whom the full panoply of Israeli laws designed to fight terror ought to be enforced.

These laws set aside due process and expose suspects to potentially unlimited incarceration, as well as bodily harm at the whim of state authorities. Once they’re reclassified as terrorists, people suspected of price tag violence may never get their day in open court. They may, for example spend years under administrative arrest. Some of those so imprisoned are likely to be innocent.

There is an orchestrated campaign on the part of some politicians and the press to get price-tag hooliganism reclassified as terror. Partly, this is the result of genuine indignation; partly the attempt of some politicians to curry favor with publicists and prosecutors who tend to believe right-wingers are bad news whatever they do.

But indignation is a bad policy where law enforcement is concerned. It creates an atmosphere in which officials think the ordinary rules are suspended and they can do whatever they want. This is particularly true when the loaded word “terror” is used, and those accused of terrorism can find themselves without rights.

Recently the police, frustrated by their inability to acquire the evidence needed to put the leaders of Israel’s murderous mafia behind bars, asked Attorney- General Yehuda Weinstein to sanction the use of administrative detention against them.

Wisely, Weinstein refused. Suspension of due process is not a proper remedy for the incompetence of Israel’s police. It is neither needed nor justified in dealing with price-tag hooligans.

We need to fear a public atmosphere that gives sanction to decisions whereby certain crimes, or worse, certain groups of offenders, are no longer subject to due process. In doing so, we not only provide opportunities for those charged with the authority of the law to abuse that authority. We gradually become a society that tolerates the suspension of due process, that no longer conceives it to be an essential aspect of civil liberties and human dignity. In denying due process to hooligans who indulge in vigilantism and mob law, we become more like them.

In free societies, people suspected of crimes are entitled to punctilious observation of their legal and human rights.

The point of these rights is not to protect criminals. It’s to protect all of us, and to ensure that we always keep in mind the moral distinction between those who break the law and those who uphold it.

The author is head of the policy research department at Kohelet Policy Forum. The views in the article are the author’s sole responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Kohelet Policy Forum.

Related Content

July 15, 2018
July 16, 2018: Groundless allegations