Why did the High Court let a far-right Kahanist run for office? - opinion

• Published date: 09 March 2024
• Author: MORDECHAI BECK
• Publication title: Jerusalem Post, The: Web Edition Articles (Israel)

This same High Court of Justice that has been fighting tooth and nail against Netanyahu's attempt to neutralize or even to silence it. This attempt was dressed up by the government as making a slight change in the High Court's dealings but was broadly seen as a way of stopping it from criticizing the government on issues that they felt were prejudicial to the public interest

However, the permission to allow a supporter of Rabbi Meir Kahane and his ilk to run contradicts the very essence of their role. Ben-Gvir's defense in front of the High Court (which can be viewed on YouTube) is that he is a new man, not the Ben-Gvir of old. But this "new" Ben-Gvir saw nothing wrong in marching across the Temple Mount, even though this is expressly forbidden by the enactments of the rabbis he purports to abide by. In addition, he has consistently and stridently cheered on the illegal bunch of young thugs who physically attack and provoke Palestinians in the territories.

Trying to find the reason for the High Court's apparently lenient decision is not easy. I turned to a site "Just Answer," an international group of lawyers prepared to answer questions concerning legal issues. From one of these licensed attorneys, Chris Keeler Esq., I received the following response:

"There is no consensus on why the High Court allowed Ben-Gvir to run for office (and no publicly available information or decision). Some argue that the court was simply upholding the principle of free speech, while others believe that the court was making a political statement. It is also possible that the court was concerned about the potential consequences of disqualifying Ben-Gvir, such as sparking unrest or violence.

"Ultimately, Ben-Gvir is the leader of the Otzma Yehudit party and not part of any party that is banned from the Knesset (despite holding similar beliefs). It is possible that the High Court relied on this information."

From this response, it is possible to learn a few things. Firstly, that even among the High Court there was disagreement about whether or not to let Ben-Gvir run for public office on the grounds of free speech. But surely that was the same dilemma that faced the court over the existence of Kahane's Kach party. What was the difference, and was it discussed? It remains unknown since, as Keeler notes, no statement on this issue has been released.

Secondly, and even more troubling, is the suggestion that the High Court was afraid of the consequences of its decision, that it...