COURT ADOPTS UN MOTION
Last week, we witnessed a pitiful about-face on this issue. Israel's Supreme Court actually decided that the 1975 UN resolution was correct -that Zionism is, in fact, "racism." It ruled that the Jewish Agency may not allocate land only to Jews, and that an Arab family may in fact purchase land in the Jewish community of Katzir, east of Hadera. Those unfamiliar with the ruling may mistakenly believe that it merely involved a private petition that may only incidentally produce more far-reaching results. True, the petitioner was a private party - the Kadan family - who insisted on being accepted into Katzir. But their specific claim was rooted in a more fundamental argument: that the State of Israel, via the Jewish Agency, cannot establish Jewish settlements, since such a policy is discriminatory, even racist. Our Supreme Court agreed, and ruled in favor of the Kadans not in just their private petition, but on the fundamental principle that lay at the basis of the petition.

Our High Court effectively breathed new life into the Arab world's decades-long goal of destroying the State of Israel. The Katzir ruling represents not just an affirmation of the UN "Zionism is Racism" declaration, but also signals the Court's openness - in principle, and perhaps also in practice - to the dismantling of the Jewish state. With this ruling, Israel's High Court is essentially stating that the thousands of Jewish communities founded by the Jewish Agency since the early days of the state were illegal from their very inception. There is even a clear indication in the ruling that Chief Justice Barak would have been prepared to apply his ruling retroactively, but did not do so only because "the present petitioners did not request the court to rule on such a question[!]"

There is no doubt in my mind that from now on, the Arabs can and will shift their entire war against the State of Israel to the "turf" of Israel's very own Supreme Court. Whereas, over the last several years, Arab energies successfully ate away at Israel through the Oslo process, the dismantling of Israel can now be done more directly and efficiently in a perfectly legal fashion. After its success with the Kadan family and the negation of the Jewish Agency law, Arab interests will almost certainly target the Law of Return. They know well that Israel's enlightened High Court will be hard-pressed to reject such a petition, since the logic of such a claim would be identical to that of the Kadan petition. Soon, by way of the same logic, Israeli Arabs will launch a case that questions the very legality of the State of Israel.

UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVE
Various theories have been bandied about in an effort to explain why Israel's High Court would make such a suicidal decision. Some voices in the country's political right suggest that the Court is teaching us about the supreme value of democracy, and that the Court believes that it supersedes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. These right-wing analysts object to the Court's ruling by quoting the late President Chaim Herzog, who once asserted that when there is a clash between democracy and the State's existence, the latter takes precedence. We are asked to believe that Chief Justice Barak just made the opposite calculation, and that democracy supersedes the value of Israel as a Jewish state.

This explanation is questionable. Perhaps if the Knesset, and not the Court, had nullified the Jewish Agency law, I may have accepted this kind of explanation. Such a Knesset decision would have been immoral and even infuriating, but it is not impossible for me to imagine the majority of Israeli legislators determining that in Israel, democracy is more crucial than the Jewish state itself.

COURT ITSELF NOT DEMOCRATIC
But - and here is where I differ with the analysts I mentioned earlier - I cannot subscribe to the theory that the Supreme Court deems democracy the overriding principle of Israeli society. For what could be more anti-democratic than a group of people, members of a narrow elite, who continually foist their narrow, elitist philosophy upon the Knesset and the nation? Instead of simply interpreting Knesset laws, the Court over the past several years has declared all matters justiciable! What could be more antithetical to democracy than a ruling [i.e., the Katzir decision] with which at least 80% of the Knesset and general population strongly disagrees?

If the Court held democracy supreme, why did it disqualify the late Rabbi Meir Kahane from running for Knesset? If our High Court was indeed concerned with democracy, why has it resisted for years the licensing of Arutz-7 radio? What could be more anti-democratic than stifling the free speech of half the nation, on the basis of some obsolete telegraph law from the 1930's?

Some of you readers may be saying to yourself that I've gone too far. "OK," you may be saying, "let's say that the Supreme Court is somewhat dictatorial and perhaps threatening to Israeli democracy. But the Court holds dear one fundamental principle: equal rights for all of Israel's citizens, regardless of race, religion, or creed. It's this principle that inspired the Court to allow the Kadans to build a house in Katzir!"

Dear readers, you may then be disillusioned when you hear of another Supreme Court decision, a copy of which lies before me on my desk at this moment. The case involved an Israeli Jew named Eliezer Avitan. Some years ago, the Israel Lands Administration founded a community near Be'er Sheva for the express purpose of providing a permanent community for Bedouins. Avitan petitioned the court to permit him to purchase a home in that settlement. Like the Kadans, he claimed that not permitting him to do so was discriminatory.

WHEN MAY EQUALITY BE OVERRIDDEN?
Our enlightened, unbiased Supreme Court rejected his petition. "The principle of equality is designed to serve a just goal," wrote the Court. "It is not aimed at providing mere technical 'equality' for equality's sake. The state [of Israel] has a specific interest in promoting Bedouin settlement, and it is for this reason that the Court has no interest in permitting the petitioner to acquire a house in the community in question."

Follow the Court's logic? The State has an interest in establishing a Bedouin community - but what interest could Israel have in providing communities for Jews? For the Kadans, the principle of equality reigned supreme. But the same court said that in the case of Bedouin settlement, the principle of equality takes a back seat.

Attorney Elyakim Ha'etzni said recently that the next hareidi protest against the Supreme Court should not simply be attended by hareidi and other religious people. Anyone who identifies with the colors "blue and white," who truly cares about the survival of the State of Israel, must also raise their voices.

By Rabbi Aharon Dov Halper