Amid the judicial reform which has just passed its first phase of legislation in the Knesset, one could imagine the men and women who harass and torture Jews in the settlements of Judea and Samaria coming out of their dungeons, wiping the spattered blood off their rubber aprons, to protest this “threat to democracy.” Having received the Supreme Court’s support to use excessive violence in interrogating Jewish suspects, these knights of freedom and equality are worried about the future of their country.
Not exactly. The 460 men and women who on Tuesday sent a petition to Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter (Likud), who used to be the Shin Bet chief, were former members of the clandestine police organization – but many of them belonged to the “Jewish section,” who dragged confessions out of Jewish suspects, with the full backing of the court (see Nobel Laureate Calls on Supreme Court President to Reconsider Ben Uliel’s Confession Given under Torture).
Hundreds of Shin Bet veterans on Tuesday signed a letter they sent to Minister Dichter, criticizing his support for the legal revolution and calling on him “not to give in to the threat to the democratic institutions in Israel.” The group included the former heads of the agency, Karmi Gilon, Ami Ayalon, and Yuval Diskin, and declared that “there is no state interest that’s above the law.”
Now they’re defending democracy. After years of terrorizing a targeted Jewish population, now that the same population finally fights back – using the ballot box – now democracy is threatened.
Incidentally, when the current Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar spoke with Justice Minister Yariv Levin to warn him about the heated discourse surrounding his reform, complete with warnings about political assassinations, he was talking about the left assassinating right-wing lawmakers. So where are the mass arrests of left-wing suspects who have declared openly that it’s time for some bloodshed? Disgraced former PM Ehud Olmert who said in front of the cameras it was no longer time for talking, it was time for war; and Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai who told thousands of protesters gathered in his city that once a democracy is lost, the only way to bring it back is with bloodshed. Are they being interrogated in the Shin Bet dungeons? Not anytime soon.
Dvir Kariv, a former member of the Jewish section of the Shin Bet and author of the book “Words Can Kill” told Radio 103FM earlier this month, in response to the call by senior attorney David Hodak to take up arms against the “judicial revolution,” that “The things that Attorney Hodak said are very serious. They describe a non-violent civilian revolt, but there’s no such thing as non-violent civilian revolt.”
“This is something very unusual, the third time this has happened since the establishment of the state. The first time it happened was before Rabin’s murder. This is the first time the head of the Shin Bet talks about the possibility that it will also come from the protesters. When the head of the Shin Bet says this, he’s saying he has information.”
If this is the case, why aren’t the obvious suspects, the nuts who on Monday morning physically blocked several right-wing lawmakers from leaving their homes to discharge their duty to vote in the Knesset that day? We know very well that, had this kind of threat come from, say, the Hills Youth, half of Judea and Samaria would be detained by now.
Attorney Eli Bachar, the former Shin Bet legal counselor, explained former Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter’s support for the coalition’s judicial reform: “It may be that he considers that something will happen and then he will be called to help, but at this time he is lending a hand to the destruction of the country and the ground we all stand on. Everything for his personal goals.”
In other words, a traitor. That’s the only explanation. Dichter couldn’t possibly support the legislation because he believes in it.
Attorney Bachar, who served under Dichter, told Haaretz last Friday: “The new popular thesis holds that the Shin Bet is the only body charged by law with protecting the order of the democratic regime and its institutions. But those who claim this ignore the provision of Article 7 (a), which defines the mission of the service and its duties. What is it defending against? The law talks about protection against ‘threats of terrorism, sabotage, subversion, espionage and disclosure of state secrets.’ It is not talking about defense against an internal political threat.”
Bachar concludes: “An unrealistic expectation has developed here of the heads of the service to act as doctors of political science. They are expected to decide that the new legislation harms democracy and then do what? Put people in administrative detention?”
That would be inconceivable for left-wing threats.
